# Substrates & the myth of impaction.



## wilkinss77 (Sep 23, 2008)

I've seen many posts where keepers of lizards (& other reptiles) insist on using solid flooring in their housing such as tiles, carpet, fake grass or paper in preference to more natural loose substrates, because of the 'risk' of impaction in the event of the reptile ingesting any of the substrate.
I would like to point out that this supposed risk is a myth, & that no healthy reptile will suffer impaction if it ingests bits of loose substrate- after all, they don't live on tiles or carpet in the wild, but on loose soil/sand etc. The only dangerous loose substrate is calci sand, which should be avoided at all costs.
I would recommend loose substrates over solid ones every time, as solid flooring denies your reptiles the chance to dig & burrow as most lizards & many other reptiles like to do.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

wilkinss77 said:


> I've seen many posts where keepers of lizards (& other reptiles) insist on using solid flooring in their housing such as tiles, carpet, fake grass or paper in preference to more natural loose substrates, because of the 'risk' of impaction in the event of the reptile ingesting any of the substrate.
> I would like to point out that this supposed risk is a myth, & that no healthy reptile will suffer impaction if it ingests bits of loose substrate- after all, they don't live on tiles or carpet in the wild, but on loose soil/sand etc. T*he only dangerous loose substrate is calci sand, which should be avoided at all costs.*
> I would recommend loose substrates over solid ones every time, as solid flooring denies your reptiles the chance to dig & burrow as most lizards & many other reptiles like to do.


I agree with most of your post mate  but...

Why only calci sand though? it makes no sense to me that it would be any more dangerous than any other type of sand mate. I have used calci sand myself with 3 sp of lizard including _pogona vitticeps_, _ Eublepharis macularius_, and _Sauromalus_

Calcium sand' is CaCo3 which is simply just calcium carbonate, it is the exact same as what is in our supplements and calcium tubs. 
It doesn't make sense to me that it should be avoided at all costs or is a higher risk than any other type of particulate. 

I have to agree that in the majority of cases substrate injestion is often linked to the husbandry (somewhere) although my own vet would disagree that all these cases are specifically husbandry related since animals can accidentally injest wrong things out of curiosity. The fact animals will eat things such as coins isn't conclusive of anything. Although I personally see more advantages to substrates than there being risks. 

I personally use a wide variety of different substrates depending on the species I am housing. 

These range from semi natural (bark, sand, moss) mixtures with live bugs to assist the clean ups in different ratios and different mixes depending on the species (all free mostly from my garden mind)  

Either plain reptile, or garden center, top soil, sand, desert mixes, aspen, bark, moss, leaf litter, woodchips, excavator clays etc, and have never personally had a problem, I may even include some hay in some instances, and of course calci-sand like I discussed above. I have even used the dried pellet substrates which aren't really all that great for most species but I would happily use it again with some species. 

I have used simpler substrates too in rare instances (notably with specimens recovering or who just had surgery) or needed monitoring for what-ever reason. 

Artifical grass, reptile carpet, newspaper, kitchen towel. I have used it all to some degree or some level of success, it all comes down to preference I suppose, I wont judge someones husbandry based on there choice, they must assess the risks for themselves based on the information they have at there disposal. I just use what works for me. 

I try to encourage what works for me if I am asked, but that's all you can do


----------



## Azastral (Jun 6, 2015)

I think some mention should be given here as to _why...

_The stories about loose substrate being an impaction risk are mostly linked to two main reasons, either the substrate choice is unsuitable for the species, for example using wood chip or corn husk for bearded dragons, or the animal itself isnt properly being cared for, normally meaning improper heating, nutrition or hydration.

Some loose substrates are simply unsuitable for a species because of that animals eating habits and the size of the substrate.
Things like wood chips get stuck in their gut and are very difficult to digest, things like corn husk are also difficult to digest and can absorb water and swell causing blockages.

With regards to how care can lead to impaction, if the animal doesnt have proper heat to aid digestion, or a poor diet leading to poor digestive health, then it cant deal with the ingested substrate and pass it through, and water is a huge component to this in terms of how it will soften fecal matter and contribute to the digestive process.

As pointed out already, these animals come from environments where loose bark, pebbles, sand, soil/dirt make up their surroundings, they are evolved to live in that environment. But with that you also have to provide the other environmental factors that go alongside it that their bodies are evolved to function properly within.

With all reptiles, you should be thinking about what their natural environment is like and trying to create something that provides those same factors as best you can, and using a substrate that mimics where they come from is part of that and goes towards enriching their environment and improving their lives.

You can play it safe and give a sterile environment, but there really is no need unless the animal itself has specific conditions and requires some sort of intensive care (be it illness or recovery), loose substrates do not pose a risk AS LONG AS you are properly caring for and providing for the animal, which in itself is a far greater risk to its health if you are not doing things right.

Impaction is a symptom of incorrect care and provision, not a illness caused by "bad" substrates.


----------



## wilkinss77 (Sep 23, 2008)

Salazare Slytherin said:


> I agree with most of your post mate  but...
> 
> Why only calci sand though? it makes no sense to me that it would be any more dangerous than any other type of sand mate. I have used calci sand myself with 3 sp of lizard including _pogona vitticeps_, _ Eublepharis macularius_, and _Sauromalus_
> 
> ...


My understanding is that calci sand is dodgy because it really _can _cause compaction, even in a healthy reptile by melting into a solid lump when ingested, & a lot of advocates of loose substrates even warn against it's use in general.


----------



## wilkinss77 (Sep 23, 2008)

Of course, if a reptile is recovering from an illness, then a solid flooring can be recommended until the reptile is healthy again. But for general husbandry, loose substrates (provided they are correct ones for the species) are a better option.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

wilkinss77 said:


> My understanding is that calci sand is dodgy because it really _can _cause compaction, even in a healthy reptile by melting into a solid lump when ingested, & a lot of advocates of loose substrates even warn against it's use in general.


I have herd about it "clumping" but this in my experience is quite an erronious statement. I actually experimented with this last year and put a few photos on my fb, tipped a bit of water into my mix, it didn't really clump, it just swirled around and made it "wet" like play sand lol. 

The stomach is a little more complex and always "shifting" it isn't stationary, capable of filling and emptying so, I personally am not so sure it is of higher risk than any other particulate myself, I also think the "time frame" and activity levels of the lizards combined with other husbandry factors would need to be considered, if impaction occurs with calci-sand, the chances are it would have occurred with any other particulate type too. 

In my opinion I see it as a very low risk, though I know a lot of keepers say it is dangerous and there is a lot of information on the internet suggesting it to be, but I personally find it a strange statement. 

If I was to nit pick calci-sand for anything, its the dye causing my animals to look pink, green or what-ever else, so if I was going to use it again I would use normal plain calcium sand lol. :2thumb:


----------



## Arcadiajohn (Jan 30, 2011)

The problem here is with 'non-natural' Substrates. If this is 'non-natural' then evolution will not have equipped the species to deal with it. 

Couple that in most cases with animals that are poorly or ineffectively heated, Hydrated, in poor nutritional condition and without the energy or space to exercise, we have a great risk.

If we invoke the practise of the theory of 'Wild Re-Creation' in a safe and measured way, we allow a species to function as it would in the wild state. By function I mean to have the correct level of energy to move, feed and to go through the usual biological processes well. This means that the animal has access to a stable and varied source of food that then allows these functions to continue to take place without detriment to the animals body or systems. That it also has access to water in the correct way that will underpin and allow for all of the above to take place.

Historically a % of animals have not had access to the correct temps nor in the right way. We must see the positive action of radiated heat upwards to the belly also. They certainly have not had access to the anywhere enough dietary variety nor have they had access to wild-like mineral or vitamin provision as the synthetic provision available to us could only ever be 'best guess'.

They were usually under hydrated, Dixon will confirm this from his rescue point of view. Many keepers simply didn't understand how animals obtain water, per species, per group and even per animal. Not many even now have daily misting for Arid species like the B.D. They do not understand that the collection of water on the skin is a core part of the animals evolved water collection method, then using capillary action to channel the water into the mouth.

so, we had very poorly supplied for animals. Not able to go through usual digestive or many other biological cycles. 

The addition of CaCo3 sands in my mind does present with a risk. Being that it is of a high particle size and is not natural in its used state. As such it is out of balance.

Couple that with an under provided for animal, where digestion is slow, muscle contraction is limited due to the poor provision of Ca and Mg and with dire hydration and the granules simply do not breakdown or move through the gut. 

Impaction is a horrific condition but one that is born from a poor provision of and a poor understanding of wild-like external and internal sources of provision,.

This was made worse with those species that naturally self-supplement. Knowing a lack of mineral provision in their body they willingly ingested the substrate. That is a wild survival technique! a way of getting minerals back into the body in times of lack. So they ingested the sands to try and find Ca and made the whole thing worse. 

Particle ingestion is a natural and safe part of the normal feeding process! Soil particles should enter the mouth when feeding and drinking, this is natural and safe IF the animal is provided for to its core evolved need and a natural, organic substrate is used.

I wont bore you any more. I have explained more of this in detail in PRK. I am sure that free downloads can be found with further details within the series of 3 books, again all of which can be requested for free at your local library. 

So to conclude; Are natural loose particle substrates safe and effective? YES, they certainly and can be thought of as wholly beneficial-IF the external provision of the animal is correct,

Do non-natural or unbalanced substrates pose a risk to health? Yes, especially when the animal is not provided for correctly. The most confusing thing for me however is why would anyone want to use a substrate that is 1. non natural and 2 only ever replicates a single element of 'soil'?

I mean soil is made from weathered rock, organics, water and gas. 

if you only use a rock base, then you are missing out on the balance of the organic %. If you only use, lets say coco fibre then you negate the mineral content and maintain a fibrous, non digestible and nutritionally poor substrate that not even plants can grown in for long!

its all about balance, 

John


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Arcadiajohn said:


> The problem here is with 'non-natural' Substrates. If this is 'non-natural' then evolution will not have equipped the species to deal with it.
> 
> Couple that in most cases with animals that are poorly or ineffectively heated, Hydrated, in poor nutritional condition and without the energy or space to exercise, we have a great risk.
> 
> ...


I have actually just submitted that dehydration article to the reptile apartment recently. It will be available for viewing. 

You know, the only time I ever actually seen one of my lizards eat a substrate was approx 3 years ago, my female iguana Minnie. She had just dropped a walloping pile of eggs. I took her outside the following day to catch some rays in the sun, she walked over to the herb patches and was eating it by the mouthfulls depsite the leaves, and despite having a food dish coated with calcium. She was definitely self supplementing in my opinion. 

She was dehydrated too, (obviously) but I can tell you for zilch she still never got impacted, which does make me wonder just how seriously under provided for the husbandry had been in those few examples there are of impaction floating about for it to have occurred.

It did eventually halt within the week as I made sure she ate her food indoors and coated the plates in calcium and all my other good stuff, so presumably that was the cause. It does make me wonder about wild females though...:hmm:

Great post John.


----------



## loxocemus (Sep 2, 2006)

the obvious caveat is this

healthy - no substrate ingestion likely

unhealthy - a risk if it occurs

what if this unhealthy animal is outwardly normal? the abnormality, disease, dehydration, bacteria, whatever, is an invisible deficiency or defect.......

u cannot say substrate ingestion is safe when u cant say for sure the animal ingesting it is 100% healthy/hydrated, disease free, just looking at it will only answer the obvious.

rgds
ed


----------



## wilkinss77 (Sep 23, 2008)

loxocemus said:


> the obvious caveat is this
> 
> healthy - no substrate ingestion likely
> 
> ...


Tbh, thinking like that is sailing dangerously close to paranoia, because that could mean ANY reptile is latently unhealthy. In the vast majority of cases, looks/behaves healthy means it is healthy- in which case it's safe to use loose substrates.


----------



## loxocemus (Sep 2, 2006)

if my point is paranoia, then ur's is simple hopeful assumption. and ur assumption of health would put readers of ur points at risk, when u have no idea of their animals health, other than, if it looks healthy it probably is.

rgds
ed



wilkinss77 said:


> Tbh, thinking like that is sailing dangerously close to paranoia, because that could mean ANY reptile is latently unhealthy. In the vast majority of cases, looks/behaves healthy means it is healthy- in which case it's safe to use loose substrates.


----------



## wilkinss77 (Sep 23, 2008)

loxocemus said:


> if my point is paranoia, then ur's is simple hopeful assumption. and ur assumption of health would put readers of ur points at risk, when u have no idea of their animals health, other than, if it looks healthy it probably is.
> 
> rgds
> ed


What are you suggesting then? That it's dangerous to use loose substrates just in case the reptile is latently sick? No one else other than you has disagreed with my points.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Personally I try to get blood work done yearly. 
It obviously isn't financially reasonable to do with 13 + iguanas at anyone time for example, because those numbers remain the same, but the specimens change that complicates things a little more (so unless I suspect something, or they are my personal pets, the best you can do is make assumptions. 

If say for example. 
Those animals were all cared for roughy to a similar standard 
(same humidity, exact same diet, supplement routine, temperatures, UV products) and so on you may only need to have a handful done to make some assumptions on the other within that population, but even then, there are limitations to this and it isn't always reliable. 

Each Iguana (or any lizard) has a different blood level - at least a couple of haematologies to check red and white cell counts. At least do one biochem to check protein levels, uric acid, liver and kidney enzymes.

Reasonable assumption can then be made about the status of the others, but it doesn't always mean its true for a huge variety and factors of reasons. 
If owners only have one specimen (like a bearded dragon owner) then they don't have this problem and it does make things easier  

I personally like to know the status of my animals though, these things can help us learn where we are going right, and if there is anything we can improve on, but of course, its still just a point and a test done ina moment in time, so what that test showed one month, could be very different the next. 

I agree with Ed, you can not visually fully determine just how "healthy" an animal is based just on physical appearance alone but you can make reasonable assumptions on the physical appearances which is about as good as it will get without lab work, and even then.... that has its limitations too.


----------



## Sambow (Jan 24, 2016)




----------



## Azastral (Jun 6, 2015)

loxocemus said:


> the obvious caveat is this
> 
> healthy - no substrate ingestion likely
> 
> ...



To say a healthy animal wont ingest substrate is wrong, any prey hunting species is likely to ingest substrate if they are allowed to actively hunt live prey in their viv, salad gets knocked about and can also pick up substrate, digging species can end up ingesting substrate. They might not actively eat substrate but they can still ingest quantities of it. As Salazare also pointed out, females can then self-supplement after things such as egg production, these are still healthy animals. To me these are also part of the reasons why you should be using substrates that are the same as what they would naturally encounter (where possible) as it is what they will be equipped to deal with. Even wild animals (which can have all sorts of conditions) will deal with substrate effectively in most cases, and that relates to how in their natural environment they have the levels of heat/light/nutritional variety and hydration that they are evolved to work with.

Chronic substrate ingestion can be a sign of poor nutrition, but again this is something the owner should be addressing in terms of the diet they provide, the supplementation and the environment, all of which go into forming proper husbandry.

Its the responsibility of the owner to learn about the animal they intend to get before getting it, and to find out about habitat requirements, food requirements and care requirements.

Even with a healthy animal, or if we go with your idea of an animal that may appear outwardly healthy but has possible issues, its a good idea to be seeing a reptile vet for things like fecal tests and health checks. Any sign of actual illness should be triggering that process again as well.

I think the biggest thing here is about educating yourself about the animals you keep or intend to keep, being open to adapt and improve the conditions you provide and doing as much as you can to provide a good level of nutrition, this alone will avoid 90% of the problems owners can encounter. This is probably the biggest thing people can do to improve the animals life, and you tend to find that the more people know about their animals, the more then also tend to go towards natural based environments and better food provision.

I personally think going the loose substrate/natural substrate route is the best option, but i also keep an eye on varying the food supply and monitor temps as well as monitoring my beardies and misting etc.

Regular check ups to see if theres any hidden nasties going on is, to me at least, part of that proper care.


----------



## wilkinss77 (Sep 23, 2008)

Azastral said:


> To say a healthy animal wont ingest substrate is wrong, any prey hunting species is likely to ingest substrate if they are allowed to actively hunt live prey in their viv, salad gets knocked about and can also pick up substrate, digging species can end up ingesting substrate. They might not actively eat substrate but they can still ingest quantities of it. As Salazare also pointed out, females can then self-supplement after things such as egg production, these are still healthy animals. To me these are also part of the reasons why you should be using substrates that are the same as what they would naturally encounter (where possible) as it is what they will be equipped to deal with. Even wild animals (which can have all sorts of conditions) will deal with substrate effectively in most cases, and that relates to how in their natural environment they have the levels of heat/light/nutritional variety and hydration that they are evolved to work with.
> 
> Chronic substrate ingestion can be a sign of poor nutrition, but again this is something the owner should be addressing in terms of the diet they provide, the supplementation and the environment, all of which go into forming proper husbandry.
> 
> ...


All of my reptiles have ingested substrate at some time- snakes & lizards accidentally whilst feeding, & lizards deliberately whilst digging/foraging (& also picking out & eating urates). None have EVER suffered from impaction in 30 years of keeping. Even among my current lizards, I've seen my pair of Dwarf Sungazrers/Tropical Girdletails munch a bit of eco earth & the odd urate, even when not being fed- & I've had them more than 3 years- I've learnt to accept it's just something they occasionally do.


----------



## wilkinss77 (Sep 23, 2008)

Azastral said:


> To say a healthy animal wont ingest substrate is wrong, any prey hunting species is likely to ingest substrate if they are allowed to actively hunt live prey in their viv, salad gets knocked about and can also pick up substrate, digging species can end up ingesting substrate. They might not actively eat substrate but they can still ingest quantities of it. As Salazare also pointed out, females can then self-supplement after things such as egg production, these are still healthy animals. To me these are also part of the reasons why you should be using substrates that are the same as what they would naturally encounter (where possible) as it is what they will be equipped to deal with. Even wild animals (which can have all sorts of conditions) will deal with substrate effectively in most cases, and that relates to how in their natural environment they have the levels of heat/light/nutritional variety and hydration that they are evolved to work with.
> 
> Chronic substrate ingestion can be a sign of poor nutrition, but again this is something the owner should be addressing in terms of the diet they provide, the supplementation and the environment, all of which go into forming proper husbandry.
> 
> ...


All of my reptiles have ingested substrate at some time- snakes & lizards accidentally whilst feeding, & lizards deliberately whilst digging/foraging (& also picking out & eating urates). None have EVER suffered from impaction in 30 years of keeping. Even among my current lizards, I've seen my pair of Dwarf Sungazers/Tropical Girdletails munch a bit of eco earth & the odd urate every now & again, even when not being fed- & I've had them more than 3 years- I've learnt to accept it's just something they occasionally do.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 18, 2014)

Of course you will never know 100% that an animal is healthy but I think what is being said is basicly that if you know your animals care requirements and meet them then the chances are pretty good that your animal will be healthy (except of course for genetic issues but thats another story and certainly not a reason to deny access to natural substrate "just in case")



If you provide well hydrated live food and clean drinking water / mist daily then chances are that your animal wont be dehydrated.


If you provde the correct heat in the right way then chances are that your animal's body will be able to function and digest or pass through any food/ plant material/ substrate that is injested.
Where as if an animal who would naturally dig / burrow/ hunt etc, is kept on tile or lino then chances are that he is going to end up being bored, uncomfortable and in diggers, feeling exposed and frustrated resulting in stress.

I whole heartedly support the use of natural substrates for all species - barring of course any medical need for a sterile environment


----------



## wilkinss77 (Sep 23, 2008)

Fizz said:


> Of course you will never know 100% that an animal is healthy but I think what is being said is basicly that if you know your animals care requirements and meet them then the chances are pretty good that your animal will be healthy (except of course for genetic issues but thats another story and certainly not a reason to deny access to natural substrate "just in case")
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hear, hear! That's exactly what we all mean in support of loose substrates.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

All excellent points. 
Couldn't have had this discussion on this only 2 years ago on this forum. :lol2: My how times change.... 

Does this mean we are all starting to get old now.... or just the forum :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## lozmick (Jun 24, 2013)

Salazare Slytherin said:


> All excellent points.
> Couldn't have had this discussion on this only 2 years ago on this forum. :lol2: My how times change....
> 
> Does this mean we are all starting to get old now.... or just the forum :Na_Na_Na_Na:



We all getting old but with age comes patience and wisdom


----------



## lozmick (Jun 24, 2013)

double post


----------



## Thrasops (Apr 15, 2008)

I think a point here that has been largely overlooked or hand-waved is that geophagy/ lithophagy are perfectly natural and normal aspects of behaviour for many reptiles and are well documented in crocodilians, chelonians and a large variety of lizards.

It seems to be more common in omnivorous or herbivorous species - this has been well documented in certain iguanids and is known to raise digestibility coefficient in genera such as _Ctenosaura_ to around 89% - as high as some insectivorous species and quite unusual as plant matter is traditionally viewed as harder to digest.

As such it is worth remembering that a surprisingly large number of lizards are known to practice voluntary geophagy - it is known in genera such as _Ctenosaura_, _Sceloporus_, _Cnemidophorus_, in various Agamids, in Tegus, in many Lacertids and even recorded in Chameleons. I have witnessed it myself in the wild in _Gallotia stehlini_, _Agama atra_, _Timon lepidus_ and _Podarcis vaucheri_ and I have no doubt it is a fairly common behaviour in others.

The reason for this may stem from problem shared by many omnivorous lizards, which is that many display relatively few specific digestive and physiological adaptations to a herbivorous diet - this is easiest to see in isolated, island examples of species that have diverged form insectivorous ancestors such as _Podarcis lilfordi_ and the _Gallotia _that, due to their environment, have had to adapt rapidly (in relative terms) to an enforced change in diet. As such geophagy in such species may be a necessity (to the extent that numbers of stones in faeces has been used as an indicator to differentiate species and populations).

In light of this - ingestion of substrate in and of itself would not appear to be any cause for concern provided other aspects of husbandry are on par (in particular diet, correct temperatures and adequate provision of UV).

Perhaps more relevant to captive husbandry is the idea of "self-supplementation" and that is more worrisome as it stems from the idea that the animal is deficient in some way. This is most likely in pet lizards due to either not enough Calcium in the diet or an imbalance between Calcium and Potassium (and this is where diet is particularly important; crickets for example, the most widely used prey species for insectivorous lizards, do not have an ideal ratio of Ca and I believe this also may impact the chances of lizards ingesting substrate voluntarily - as such I have always been a firm advocate for varied diets and prefer to provide as many wild collected insects as possible for insectivorous species; the benefits of this are obvious and documented in terms of coloration and activity, and forcing a lizard to adopt different prey-handling techniques for different prey items is just another form of enrichment as well).

Personally, I have always and will always provide loose substrate and have never witnessed any issues caused by impaction in thirty years of keeping a huge variety of species, and I am a firm advocate that as long as husbandry is up to scratch any risks from substrate are minimal and far outweighed by the benefits they provide.

However I would not personally recommend "calci sand" - having tried it with everything from Sand Boas to _Stenodactylus_ geckos I do notice it has a tendency to clump more than play sand or builders' sand, it can get stuck around the cloaca or around the eyes and there are several high profile cases where malnourished or under-supplemented lizards have literally gorged themselves on it to the point of huge impaction.

In any case I do not consider "pure" sand to be particularly good for most reptiles anyway (even "desert" species rarely inhabit straight-up pure, windblown sand and those that do tend to be rare in the hobby) so I only use it for species adapted for hyper-arid sand dune environments such as _Psammophis aegyptius_ and _Platyceps saharicus_ - for everything else I mix sand with soil, coir, peat or other substrates.

Regards,
Francis


----------



## Satch (Sep 25, 2009)

Some excellent posts in this thread (not least the last one). Definitely an example of the forum at it's best.


----------



## Thrasops (Apr 15, 2008)

Satch said:


> Some excellent posts in this thread (not least the last one). Definitely an example of the forum at it's best.


Well... just reading back my previous reply - it is an imbalance of Calcium and _Phosphorus_ (not Potassium) that causes problems in some insectivores' diet. Not sure how I wrote Potassium; possibly an autocorrect error as I at least put the correct element symbol for Phosphorus!


----------



## Arcadiajohn (Jan 30, 2011)

Autocorrect is a nightmare,

As a point of note, we must factor in all of the earthbound elements as being as important as each other. Isolating and providing as singular leads to imbalance, over and under provision.

As example, Magnesium is as vital to the calcium cycle as Ca, P, water, heat, rest and physical activity. Without adequate provision Ca cannot be assimilated, stored in the correct places and used as nature intended to put is crudly. This can then lead to bone, muscle, organ and neurological malfunction through over or under supply.

So, all elements in balance, hense the action of self-supplementation in the wild and then mimicked in captivity. 

John, 



Thrasops said:


> Well... just reading back my previous reply - it is an imbalance of Calcium and _Phosphorus_ (not Potassium) that causes problems in some insectivores' diet. Not sure how I wrote Potassium; possibly an autocorrect error as I at least put the correct element symbol for Phosphorus!


----------



## Thrasops (Apr 15, 2008)

Arcadiajohn said:


> Autocorrect is a nightmare,
> 
> As a point of note, we must factor in all of the earthbound elements as being as important as each other. Isolating and providing as singular leads to imbalance, over and under provision.
> 
> ...


 True of course, but what I was alluding to was the ratio of Calcium to Phosphorus in that most ubiquitous of feeder insects, the cricket - which often serves as the staple diet for many insectivorous lizards. Crickets have an inverse Calcium: Phosphorus ratio (something like three times as much Phosphorus as Calcium, off the top of my head); a major reason why Calcium supplementation is required and why I much prefer to offer as wide a variety of feeder insects as possible.


----------



## Arcadiajohn (Jan 30, 2011)

100% true! Good supplementation and good variety of livefood species is a must.

I mean, where in the world have these animals evolved to live on almost sterile lab insects fed almost exclusively on greens?

The same is true for frozen rodents.

Much work to be done.




Thrasops said:


> True of course, but what I was alluding to was the ratio of Calcium to Phosphorus in that most ubiquitous of feeder insects, the cricket - which often serves as the staple diet for many insectivorous lizards. Crickets have an inverse Calcium: Phosphorus ratio (something like three times as much Phosphorus as Calcium, off the top of my head); a major reason why Calcium supplementation is required and why I much prefer to offer as wide a variety of feeder insects as possible.


----------



## Cakes86 (Dec 15, 2016)

Arcadiajohn said:


> 100% true! Good supplementation and good variety of livefood species is a must.
> 
> I mean, where in the world have these animals evolved to live on almost sterile lab insects fed almost exclusively on greens?
> 
> ...


Would this negate the need to dust crickets with powdered calcium etc considering that said lizards wouldn't be eating calcium rich crickets in their natural environment ? Or would this push more towards alternating between the two options ? Just a novice adding in his hypothesis


----------



## Arcadiajohn (Jan 30, 2011)

No, as we have such poor insight into and the provision of wild-like diets good supplements must be used and gutloading maintained in pertinent species.



Cakes86 said:


> Would this negate the need to dust crickets with powdered calcium etc considering that said lizards wouldn't be eating calcium rich crickets in their natural environment ? Or would this push more towards alternating between the two options ? Just a novice adding in his hypothesis


----------



## Satch (Sep 25, 2009)

Thrasops said:


> Well... just reading back my previous reply - it is an imbalance of Calcium and _Phosphorus_ (not Potassium) that causes problems in some insectivores' diet. Not sure how I wrote Potassium; possibly an autocorrect error as I at least put the correct element symbol for Phosphorus!


Tbh, i didn't notice, i think i must have just assumed it said phosphorus!

What's your preferred ration of substrates for something like sand boas? (if you've worked with them?)


----------



## Thrasops (Apr 15, 2008)

Satch said:


> Tbh, i didn't notice, i think i must have just assumed it said phosphorus!
> 
> What's your preferred ration of substrates for something like sand boas? (if you've worked with them?)


I have kept a couple of species (_jaculus_, _colubrinus_, _conicus_). I used to use a substrate called Pro Rep Tortoise Life (it is a thick sand with large grains) mixed about 60:40 with potting compost.

As the sand boas mentioned above don't actually inhabit pure sand but rather stony/ steppe environments, I also used to mix in grit of varying grades as well, with a few large flat rocks too. As long as you make sure all the rocks/ pebbles/ grit come from the same rock type you can get a really good looking substrate.


----------

