Gut loading frenzy

[PetNcs]

I have tried to address your points but the goalposts keep moving.

I stand corrected on other sites using gutloading in its literal meaning. Our resources say 12-24 hours after feeding feeders. But I also maintain that there is absolutely no evidence that literal gutloading is not effective and you have yet to provide any. Why does it have to be digested by the cricket first to be able to be digested by the chameleon? What evidence do you have that that is necessary and that crickets digest it in a beneficial way? Have you seen the size of a cricket mouth and alimentary canal? They are not eating entire leaves, which you say chameleons cannot process - they are minuscule pieces, and they digest the food very quickly regardless. My veiled ate whole leaves of vegetation (collard greens, mustard greens, etc) near daily and I never once saw intact plant pieces in his feces btw. Perhaps this is different from your experience with wild chameleons due to the type of vegetation consumed. Maybe our commercial produce is easier to digest. So even with the other definitions from other sites "a short time" after feeding the feeders is not well defined but if it is even a few hours then digestion has already occurred so digestion has still taken place. Therefore, still beneficial by your standards.

I provided evidence that ingestion of a variety of vegetables or other gutloads increases the nutrient composition of crickets. As well as evidence that multiple species of reptiles and birds have shown health benefits after ingesting said feeders with different intervals. I put them in my response for everyone to see and investigate further if they'd like.

Provide evidence that oranges or almonds are harmful to reptile species and we can talk about it.

Provide evidence that chameleons cannot digest even minuscule pieces of intact fruits or veggies and we can talk about it.

Provide evidence that we are forcing ingestion of indigestible food items and we can talk about it.

That is how to properly have this kind of discussion. Not just who yells the most.

 

[PetNcs]

I have tried to address your points


Period

 

[Beman]

I have nothing to discuss witb you with your ,
Manipulatibe and unfair approach. I do not owe you anything. Yow efficiently ridicule and kill any debate.
You are not here to require, I do not report to yiu.
Ho and write your fossilized funny and wrong cate sheets and wrong materials based on pseudoevidence and incidental biased captive pseudoexperience and twist the terminology as yij want.
I have no base to discuss witb you.

Now this response insulted me... I am done with this thread.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

All I do is ask you for evidence to support your claims and you accuse me of pseudoscience and insult me and other members personally and CF. Again. You are not interested in a scientific debate, only personal attacks and insults, of which you seem to have plenty. The patience for your disrespectful behavior to the forums and its members is quickly dwindling.

 

[Kaizen]

Now this response insulted me... I am done with this thread.

Ugh! Petr, @Beman has always been among the first to address new keepers, and has spent her time going through their husbandry, and given advice from personal experience. When you use terms such as ‘manipulative’, ‘pseudoscience’, ‘fantasy’, ‘fairy tale’, ‘lies’, ‘misinformation’, ‘killing debate’, and characterize peoples’ views as ‘fossilized’, ‘uninformed’ etc., you alienate your interlocutors. And that, more than anything, stifles discussion.

I feel like anyone who sincerely cares about the welfare of captive chameleons would be well served to figure out some way of influencing dissenting views without ostracizing the people who express them.

 

[Highway61]

All I do is ask you for evidence to support your claims and you accuse me of pseudoscience and insult me and other members personally and CF. Again. You are not interested in a scientific debate, only personal attacks and insults, of which you seem to have plenty. The patience for your disrespectful behavior to the forums and its members is quickly dwindling.

I only referred to petr as the "robust gentlemen" and his response was to threaten me with violence!

I've never seen anyone play the victim as much as this guy who consistantly insists on apologies if you have the nerve to challenge his self proclaimed facts, which for the most part, are devoid of any scientific or medical data.

 

[PetNcs]

Ugh! Petr, @Beman has always been among the first to address new keepers, and has spent her time going through their husbandry, and given advice from personal experience. When you use terms such as ‘manipulative’, ‘pseudoscience’, ‘fantasy’, ‘fairy tale’, ‘lies’, ‘misinformation’, ‘killing debate’, and characterize peoples’ views as ‘fossilized’, ‘uninformed’ etc., you alienate your interlocutors. And that, more than anything, stifles discussion.

I feel like anyone who sincerely cares about the welfare of captive chameleons would be well served to figure out some way of influencing dissenting views without ostracizing the people who express them.

This comment had
Nothing to do with beeman,
It
Was directed on ferretinmushoes solely,
I Habe no clue whah Beman took offense in that I did not direct these words to her, they do not belong to her

 

[Beman]

This comment had
Nothing to do with beeman,
It
Was directed on ferretinmushoes solely,
I Habe no clue whah Beman took offense in that I did not direct these words to her, they do not belong to her

It does not matter if you did not intend those words for me. You intended them for someone that I value and respect greatly in this community. Someone that has given of her time here to members she does not know and myself.

When having a discussion or a debate there is never a need to ridicule or make someone out to be less then they are. You felt cornered and you responded in a manner that was not professional IMO. She was approaching it with you from the scientific side. She stayed professional and held up her side of the debate.

She is a respected Veterinarian. She does understand the biological processes that you said I do not. But because she was challenging your views with her views as an educated professional you got offensive and belittled her.

That is what I took offense to. It went from actually learning more and the different valid points to watching you do what you normally do when you get frustrated with being confronted about your views. That was disappointing. I expect more from people like you. I expect you to hold yourself to a higher standard because you are a leader in the hobby. I expect you to stay respectful even if your views do not align with another. You can simply say thank you for your feedback I will take that into consideration.

Since this was what you were calling this thread... I thought you might like to see all the meanings for debate. Not in one does it say make the other feel less then they are or unqualified to speak.

 

[kinyonga]

This site talks a bit about spirulina and bee pollen...
http://www.chameleonnews.com/03MarDonoghue.html

 

[CasqueAbove]

This should never digress this way.
Try to remember the language barrier. We as Americans have a lot of slang we do not realize we use. This always frustrates people trying to learn English.
As an example we might say "What you're lying " Meaning the story is a "wow" story, but not to imply that our friend is lying to us.
To those out side of the US however this sounds like an insult. "How dare you call me a liar"

Much of the time this is what I see happening. Things don't always come across the way we meant. We should keep that in mind.

 

[CasqueAbove]

Arguing that it’s “gutloading” vs “feeding” is semantics and doesn’t change anything in the grand scheme of things. If it improves nutritional content and the chameleon benefits that’s the only part that matters.

This part I think is where issues come in. @ferretinmyshoes is a professional vet. In his circle the terms are understood.

The problem is this information does get distorted when passed along. 90% of pet shops are going to tell you to "gut load" and describe it as feeding healthy stuff right before feeding so it gets passed along. This is wrong.

 

[jamest0o0]

This part I think is where issues come in. @ferretinmyshoes is a professional vet. In his circle the terms are understood.

The problem is this information does get distorted when passed along. 90% of pet shops are going to tell you to "gut load" and describe it as feeding healthy stuff right before feeding so it gets passed along. This is wrong.

Well I think that's the issue, it's not wrong, not proven to be wrong at least. There's a good chance it's useless, but also a good chance that it's not depending on the ingredients. Now if they say, only gutload and neglect feeding healthy foods on a regular basis, then that would probably not be great advice.

 

[CasqueAbove]

Well I think that's the issue, it's not wrong, not proven to be wrong at least. There's a good chance it's useless, but also a good chance that it's not depending on the ingredients. Now if they say, only gutload and neglect feeding healthy foods on a regular basis, then that would probably not be great advice.

That is it. That is the advice the give. Remember were are not talking about professionals, but 18 to 20 somethings working at petCo that don't even own these animals.

The real gap is where we get our info. You could call it whatever if it is described right.

 

[Lennoncham]

I think the problem here is that we have 2 definitions / interpretations as to what the term gutloading means.

1. “gutloading” is feeding the bugs shortly before feeding to the animal so they get nutrients from the undigested food items.

2. “gutloading” is feeding the bugs healthy foods and letting them absorb the nutrients before feeding them to the animal. (What petr is calling high quality feeding)

Now this thread is going to keep on going nowhere if we can’t even agree on what the definition of gutloading actually is.

 

[Pearl Fields]

i was under the impression that "gutloading" was feeding the bugs healthy foods and letting them adsorb the nutrients before feeding them to the animal

 

[Kaizen]

i was under the impression that "gutloading" was feeding the bugs healthy foods and letting them adsorb the nutrients before feeding them to the animal

Yeah, this whole thread kind of went south. The empirical evidence suggests that feeding your bugs nutritious food is beneficial, and that’s the long and the short of it. Part of the argument was about whether ‘gutloading’ literally meant stuffing your bugs full of nutritious food right before feeding them off, or whether it had a more inclusive definition encompassing what we feed our bugs more regularly, not just right before we feed them off.

 

[Mrjamwin]

i was under the impression that "gutloading" was feeding the bugs healthy foods and letting them adsorb the nutrients before feeding them to the animal

I feel the same way and I "gutload" my feeders every day with fresh food so that way they're healthy and therefore when I feed them to my Chams then they are eating "healthy" food. I think someone said it earlier we are twisting terminology here. I think we should view it that we need to feed our feeders with the best and most nutritious foods that we can that will ultimately benefit our Chams that feed off them.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

1. “gutloading” is feeding the bugs shortly before feeding to the animal so they get nutrients from the undigested food items.

2. “gutloading” is feeding the bugs healthy foods and letting them absorb the nutrients before feeding them to the animal.

To challenge this further my question remains: is there a functional difference between the two? Has one been proven to be more efficacious than the other? Does digestion in the feeder mobilize nutrients in a way that chameleons would otherwise be unable to utilize? Or do they benefit from the nutrients regardless?

I will have to dig into the research some more to see if we have enough information to determine that.

 

[Lennoncham]

To challenge this further my question remains: is there a functional difference between the two? Has one been proven to be more efficacious than the other? Does digestion in the feeder mobilize nutrients in a way that chameleons would otherwise be unable to utilize? Or do they benefit from the nutrients regardless?

I will have to dig into the research some more to see if we have enough information to determine that.

are you asking me this? Or just in general? Because this is above my pay grade lol.

I’m not advocating for either definition was just presenting the 2 sides of the coin.

but if there isn’t a functional difference then why recommend feeding the insects to the chameleon 12-24 hrs after feeding the insects?

just trying to understand.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

are you asking me this? Or just in general? Because this is above my pay grade lol.

I’m not advocating for either definition was just presenting the 2 sides of the coin.

but if there isn’t a functional difference then why recommend feeding the insects to the chameleon 12-24 hrs after feeding the insects?

just trying to understand.

Haha no, not you specifically. You just summarized the 11 pages of discussion very concisely so I used it to keep things going on track.

The current recommendation is based on making sure that feeders have enough time to properly consume food items offered. But is that to digest them first or just ingest them? That appears to be the concept in question.