Feeding Savanna Monitors

Sorry for coming to this discussion late, but I just joined this particular forum.

I think that you looked past the two good points that Crocdoc made in his initial posting. There are two very big problems with the position of the OP and those who agree. First, you are arguing from a lack of evidence. You state that the studies done are only a few, and that those only have a small sample number of the species. Then you infer that maybe its different elsewhere, and maybe that isnt very many animals that were studied, so the studies findings arent credible. However, the point here is that those studies were done in a scientifically valid way and got evidence "x". You cannot refute that evidence "x" based on saying that maybe somewhere else its different for some other monitors. I could say that on Mars there are monitors that eat only squirrels, but since I have no evidence for that I can hardly refute scientific studies that say in certain parts of Africa they eat only inverts.

The only thing this lack of evidence can lead you to is a study you do yourselves, or pay to have one done, that gives you evidence to show that monitors somewhere eat rodents. Once again, in scientific inquiry you cannot discredit valid evidence with a lack of evidence. You may question it and then form your own hypothesis, but it only becomes worthwhile if you go out and find your own evidence to back it up. So far, and I have a feeling forevermore, there has been no study anywhere in the wild involving these animals that has shown they eat anything but inverts. Until there is, you have as much basis to continue with this argument as I do to say that Martian reptiles eat squirrels.

The second point is the idea that this is captivity and therefore we can change their diet from what we know to be their natural diet. Supposedly, there are those who increase the metabolism of their monitors and that this makes it okay to feed a high fat diet. Thats sort of like saying we should take a bunch of fat kids and give them speed. They can continue eating lots of sugar and fatty foods but still stay skinny! Problem solved right?! Hmmmmmm again the argument itself is suspect. The idea is not what can these animals adapt to, but how do we create as natural an environment as possible. It is arrogant to think that we somehow know better than nature how to create an ideal environment for these animals. I went through the hassle of creating a sealed, humidity holding environment for mine. Not because it was easy, but because it replicates their natural environment as closely as I can get it. Feeding mice is easy, but it doesnt replicate their natural environment. The sealed, humidity holding enclosure was not always the prevalent knowledge in the past, but we learned more about the animals and now that is common practice. I think you will find that in 20 years the idea of a vertebrate diet will be along the same lines as we think of using fish tanks for them today.

Lets use an easy analogy to make the point here. So we know that the four studies that have been done surveyed around 500 individuals. Of those, lets say 2 of them held vertebrates in their stomachs (which I think is actually double the real amount). That gives us a diet of 99.6% inverts. Well, that brings to mind an easy comparison - birth control. They are pretty close to the same percentages, as birth control is about 99.8% effective I think. If we use this analogy, your position/argument is much like the following:

1) We should stop using birth control, because there might be people in Antarctica that use it and it might not work for them.
2) Birth control only works for people who are free, it is not appropriate for women in jail, nursing homes or mental institutions.

When you take yourselves out of the argument (ie by using the silly example of birth control instead of your own care of your own reptile) you start to see how the argument itself does not hold up. Lack of evidence is not evidence, and trying to justify what you are doing by saying its an artificial environment, when we all try as hard as we can to recreate a natural environment, makes no sense.

They dont eat mice in the wild. I think you have to ask yourself, why are you trying so hard to justify it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jarich

They dont eat mice in the wild. I think you have to ask yourself, why are you trying so hard to justify it?

---

Standing ovation... Best post I have read in a LONG time.

You're kind of talking in circles like most do on this topic. Probably do so myself.
They dont eat mice in the wild. I think you have to ask yourself, why are you trying so hard to justify it?

You inclined to say in your response that this study and research was done in a certain geographical area.
Your statement would have more validity had the study been done in more than one area.
So really all that can be said is they do not eat rodents in the wild in those areas studied.

Wild versus captive environment there is no way you can compare the two. It's kind of absurd to think that a monitor in a box is anywhere near the same environment as one in the wild.
What everyone can agree on is monitors in general heck all lizards die prematurely in captivity and we should look at ways of preventing that.

That's why I typically try and stay clear of this particular "argument" Mike...

No matter what anyone tries to say, somehow theory and opinion seem to cloud science.

As of now, nature has been doing a superb job of keeping these animals alive, Man on the other hand has not fared as well.

So why would it seem so absurd to look at what is taking place in nature and base our decisions on what works, and turn our backs on what does not?

Mike I think you kinda missed the point there. The studies, not study, have been done in a few locations. Stating there needs to be more studies is great, because there does. But that is not evidence against the diet that has been found there. What can be said is that all of the present scientific knowledge shows that they eat invertebrates. It is up to you to show any evidence against that. And no one has.

Of course wild and captive environments are different, no one has ever stated otherwise. However, the goal is always to create as natural and beneficial an environment as possible. Since we know they eat inverts in the wild and are adapted to that, again the onus is on you to show why they shouldnt be fed this natural diet. And again, no one has.

I like to stay out of this argument as well Wayne. But we're not arguing yet,lol Just speaking and thinking out loud.
Jarich can you give me info on the areas studied? I'm not trying to disprove you. It's more for my own research into the subject.

My point into different areas and I know I've read others pointing this out before. There are arid areas of Africa where crops don't grow hence very little rodents. What about the not so arid areas that have crops and therefore more abundant rodents? What do they eat there? What are their stomach contents?

Ya, I find this to be a pretty open discussion and am happy to have it.

Both Bennett and Cisse's studies actually took place in areas (Ghana) that were characterized as open grassland and fields. In other words, these are areas that would have decent rodent populations. They are not areas where rodents would be scarce at all. Im going to check on the other study as I dont remember exactly where it was. I believe it was further inland and may have been a more arid environment, but I better check before I start talking about it.

Let me preface this by saying that I am no monitor expert. But I wanted to toss a couple of things out. Now I am NOT advocating one way or the other, but just tossing ideas out for consideration.
Try as we might we are not going to be able to accurately dupicate the diets of monitors in the wild. Unless you have a rich uncle there who will smuggle you a box of native inverts weekly. We can use the available foods to make substitutions. But are those substitutions correct just because they are all inverts?
Consider that hognose snakes for example are toad eaters in the wild yet in captivity we train them to eat rodents, which would have a considerably different make up. Yet they thrive and reproduce.

Quote:

---

Supposedly, there are those who increase the metabolism of their monitors and that this makes it okay to feed a high fat diet. Thats sort of like saying we should take a bunch of fat kids and give them speed.

---

Are you saying that increasing their metabolism by giving them the same conditions that they would live under in the wild so that their systems could function normally as built is not desirable?
Just thinking out loud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merlin

Are you saying that increasing their metabolism by giving them the same conditions that they would live under in the wild so that their systems could function normally as built is not desirable?
Just thinking out loud.

---

I know where that came from, since I have been in the middle of a lot of these discussions over the past 5 years, It is "believed" by some that elevating cage temps make it acceptable to feed different foods.

I won't name any names, but one such individual (who has never kept a sav himself) repeatedly states that "as long as you support the animal with proper husbandry you can feed them nails"

Which I suppose is true to an extent--at least on the outside. A human with proper exercise can eat burgers all day if they want and not get fat. But their insides won't be well! If I bumped up the heat on my leopard geckos enclosure they could probably handle being fed pinkies more often without getting fat, but their bodies wouldn't tolerate it.


More studies do need to be done, but I agree, it's a bad idea to completely ignore the studies we do have.