Calcium in natural habitat?

Im not trying to be rude or anything, but are you saying that they are getting calcium from the sun?? Because that would be impossible.
 
No, I think what Will is saying (and he's right) is that in the natural sunlight all the time...these animals have the greatest opportunity for maximum absorbtion of all the vitamins and Calcium they consume. So, even if the quantities are less...they may actually be getting more due to being able to utilize a higher percentage.
This is obviously reduced when an animal is living most of the time under a UVB light, but we are compensating with a higher content of nutrients in the insects we feed.
Will...don't you love when someone else answers for you?

-Brad
 
Im not trying to be rude or anything, but are you saying that they are getting calcium from the sun?? Because that would be impossible.

Not at all, I'm saying that the sun is what allows them to utilize every bit of nutrients that they consume, where in captivity under simulated UV lamps, the amounts of nutrients they absorb is subpar.
 
Brad, I agree on your input about gutloaded insects (they are a good food for chams). But I still think wild insects would be better. Hmm.. It´s not always easy to find the right words when youre discussing something in english. Can we keep the rest of this thread in Swedish? :D

I read this article, Experiences in Raising Baby Chameleons, on Chameleonnews

Here is a quote from the article:
"When feeding the neonates leafhoppers and the other wild bugs, no supplementation is provided. It is presumed that the wild caught insects are full of a wide variety of nutrients. This presumption has been backed up with anecdotal evidence of dozens of babies growing into healthy juveniles."
 
I think that saying that we provide a better gutloaded diet in captivity than what a cham gets in the wild is akin to saying that a baby fed formula is getting a better diet than a baby who is fed breast milk. We can try to similate it, and do so fairly well, but nothing is better than what nature intended.
 
Well, I actually think we do it too well.
Why not compare the way you eat now to being in the field foraging
for nuts and berries and trying to snare the occasional rabbit.
You'd be lean and muscular for sure but would you really be getting all
the things you need in your diet?
People who once lived this way lived to be, what?....30 maybe?
How long does a cham live in the wild?
"What nature intended" may not be what you desire for the chameleon you keep.


-Brad
 
Well, people lived less ages ago becouse they didn't have any medical care and had to be always fit for hunting and stuff like that, but I don't think we could say their diet wasn't appropriate.
I have visited a museum in Creta and saw several human skulls of individulas of over 40 years old, which is really a lot for that time (4000 BC) and all their teeth were immaculate! I was really surprised to see that and I suppose their diet consisted of much less carbohidrates and probably was much healthier that the ones today...
F.
 
I am not saying an animal does not get the proper nutrition in the wild.
I am saying that provide we "superfood" to our chams and practically hand it to them on a plate.
I am not opposed to feeding wild caught insects and I'm not arguing with nature's plan.
We, however, have come to expect a certain life-span and level of health in our captive bred animals which (right or wrong) has taken them to a different level of health and well being.
I am of course referring to situations where chams captive husbandry is the best it can be based on our current knowledge and ability.
Incidentally, I am 41 ... have not been to the dentist in 10 years...and my teeth are beautiful!:)

-Brad
 
do you eat better in the woods or do you eat better at publix?

I'm surprised more people don't utilize natural light for at least a few hours a day as I believe it turns your cham into a whole different animal than strictly indoor chams, although I'm sure with the right equipment it can be done suitably, I just prefer not to tinker with trial and error and use the sun I know works, for free, thats burning the same gases, at cooler temperatures and greater intensity
 
I havent read the other logs and what not and someone might have already of said it but dont you think that maybe the crickets and other insects maybe just eat somthing that is unique to the enviroment that may be high in calcium. for example Im sure that maybe a chameleon would eat a beetle just say that maybe that beetle a day or two before happened to be eating of a dead small animal or somthing like that. Just a thought.
 
Well i mean it kind of make sense. The largest Oustalet's ever seen was 36 inches long!! i think thats big enought to eat small birds and what not. And parsons and Mellers arent that far behind the Oustalets.
 
Well i mean it kind of make sense. The largest Oustalet's ever seen was 36 inches long!! i think thats big enought to eat small birds and what not. And parsons and Mellers arent that far behind the Oustalets.

Hmmm... what about the other side of the spectrum? Pygmies surely don't eat anything with bones, right? Their "range" of insects it's also much narrower than other chams and they don't eat vegetables or plants either... Do they have less need for calcium? Or their bodies are "tuned" to take the most out of what they eat?
 
Why are their range of insects narrower? just because they are smaller? Just think how many miniscule bugs there are that a large chameleon would turn their nose up at. We have spiders, flies, mites, mosquitoes, roaches, crickets, beetles... etc So their diet would comprise of babies of what large chameleon prey would be, plus a plethora or teeny weeny bugs that they wouldn't- which probably amounts to more than the likely very rare mouse or bird.
 
Im sure most of you have seen the charts and what not but i just saw that a cricket has 345 ppm of calcium. which i know isn't alot but still bugs have calcium in them. And theyre diets can only improve the calcium they already have.
 
As for the calcium in the bones of vertebrates, chameleons can't digest and absorb them...the bones just get expelled with their excrements...snakes on the other hand can digest bones as they have a very long digesting period...so, no calcium from the bones from the vertebrate preys of chameleons...
 
Back
Top Bottom