Clarification on recommended UVI

[nightanole]

See I guess I don't understand this statement. With my t5s at least; an inch or two laterally and you might be close to or at zero even though you've hit 15 in line with it. What am I missing?

BTW, side note: Reptisun LED/UVB is an excellent LED in my experience and may just provide that kind of uvb gradient if you're looking for it. It's unfortunate they haven't made one that is longer than 12" +/-.



This very well could be that's why I mentioned in another thread the cham was either cold, not getting enough uvb, or both. Hard to know for sure.

With the beam thing, im talking like a very narrow throw led flash light, that puts out uvi 15 at 5-8" from the screen, it doesnt disperse much, and puts out little to no heat.

In your case yes the working area is the same, but the cham toes is getting very close to a several watt per inch light source. Im not worried about the uvi 15, im worried about the high heat. I mean i cant even touch a lit T5HO. And to help with your argument, the UVI 15 zone is going to be extremely narrow and very little of the chameleon is getting exposed. Its going to be the thick undersides of the feet, and some of the belly, and thats if the cham is positioned perfectly. So its "safer" than say making a uvi15 basking area where the cham can vertical bask and expose its entire side to it.

 

[nightanole]

Exactly my point. If at any point of the light spectrum is extreme it’s missing part of the information to the animal. My understanding is through blood work that a uvi of 3-4 seems to be a good area because it is allowing the production of D3 in the body and we are not seeing MBD. I remember the T8 days. My chams did really well under them and lived long full lives. Even though I had to buy a bulb every 6 months lol.

Yea it might be confusing for the cham, since our reptile bulbs use a single uvb phosphor that is tuned for the bone growth section of the spectrum that is deep tissue. The cham might get confused if they are only tuned to seek out the higher uv spectrum that affects mostly just the surface of the skin (tanning response etc).

 

[DeremensisBlue]

UVI 3 is the one UVI level that has been tested within the community to provide enough vitamin D synthesis for a female Veiled or Panther chameleon to produce a fully calcified clutch of eggs with no dietary vitamin D3.
There has been no observed benefit shown at UVI 6.
UVI 3 has also been shown to be a good level for baby carpet chameleons.
The only thing magic about UVI 3 is that it has been tested on chameleons repeatedly by multiple people. Ferguson zones are a collection of extrapolations, data, and logical estimates. But the work done within the community is actual UVB on actual chameleons in captive situations.

UVI 3 is not the end of the story. It is only how far we have come at this point. Every couple of years someone else adds more to the story and we get a better picture. So far UVI 3 is holding as a functional target for the basking branch. Since tests have been done to show no additional benefit at UVI 6, but no detriment, that is a good enough selection for the upper limit. There is nothing sacred about UVI 3. It is used as a baseline because that is the most tested data point we have. Something has to go on the care guides. It makes sense to use a value we know works until we know something better.

There are no "leaders" and "followers" here. Just explorers and people trying to figure things out. If anyone wants to add more to the story the only thing in your way is a whole lot of tedious and meticulous work. We do not know what the lower effective level is. And there is much work that can be done with dose (intensity x time). UVI 3 at 12 hours a day works. Will UVI 3 at 1 hour a day work as well? Chameleons can detect UVB and have been known to UVB bask. Can a female lay a fully calcified clutch of eggs with UVI 3 only one hour in the morning and no dietary D3? And some people wonder if UVI 6 at 30 minutes is the same as UVI 3 at one hour. That particular test is not of interest to me, but it would answer an interesting question. The only requirement in all of this is that your test have an objective way to measure results and be able to be repeated by anyone to get the same results.

If you would like to repeat the test yourself, get yourself a gravid panther or veiled female, measure UVI 3 a couple inches above the basking branch (back height) and offer UVI 3 for 12 hours a day along with the rest of the normal husbandry and nutrition. Then see if the eggs, when laid, are fully calcified. If this is not a good enough way to test the results then do blood tests or whatever else satisfies your curiosity. The calcification of eggs was picked because that was a practical result we care about and we know if the female does not get enough calcium that the eggs will not be fully calcified. Someone will argue that we don't know how much calcium was taken from her bones and I will say that I would be excited to see the next experiment that uses blood tests or whatever else is a better measuring stick. Please poke as many holes as you want in the test or the conclusion, but also use all that energy to put together a better test and perform it yourself so we can all benefit from the results. Building on what was done before and making it better is not an insult to what was done before. It is the nature of science to build on past results with better and better tests. So, please, challenge UVI 3 and whether you confirm the results or provide more insight into practical application of UVI in the captive environment, the community will benefit.

 

[regal81455]

Thank you for your response.

I'm not trying to challenge the standards, just asking some harder questions to see if there is room for improvement. I think that's what a lot of us here are striving for, providing the very best care for our chams.

What effects have been seen when chams are exposed to higher levels of UVB within fz3 and beyond? You say there has been no observed benefits or detriments. Is there published documentation available to read with results / observations from short / long term testing at these upper levels that you can point me to? I would be interested in reading, if there is. In the wild, it would appear they could see 12+ regularly, if they so choose to.

A lot of my questioning came from switching to Lumenize fixtures.

With Lumenize now on the market and providing variable levels of UVB throughout the day being at UVI 3 will not be a full time thing so I'm questioning whether UVI 3 is really now the target. Maybe now we should be focusing on what their maximum exposure should be at screen top ( ie 7-10 maybe?? ), let UVB be what it will be below this point, provide more levels of "basking", and let the animal decide from there, as long as we've provided a safe enviroment?

As of right now due to Lumenize, my setup provides between 3-4 at the basking zone but that only occurs now for around 4hrs. For 9hrs a day it would be 75% power ( or more ) so somewhere around 2.5 on average for the other 5 and for the 2 hrs after lights on and 2 hrs leading up to lights out it drops off to zero.

Prior to Lumenize, it would be 3-4 all day, 12hrs straight. It would seem that some form of adjustment is going to be required, no?