Nasal Salt Glands - the cause of the white crusts on the nose

[Chris Anderson]

Well...first, I have not recommended a treatment method at all. I have a concern which I think is valid and for which no research has been done, but I have always--despite what some have said--recommended ignoring the crusts. However, as you probably know, some owners are very concerned with the aesthetics of their animals and find the crusts unacceptable. For them I do suggest reducing the quantity of calcium used but maintaining the same supplement schedule.

Your first and last sentence above are in direct contradiction to each other. You can't have it both ways and clearly you are suggesting methods to get rid of the nasal salt discharge. Please refer to my previous post regarding my thoughts on such recommendations.

"Some" is actually quite a large number. I fail to see how you can say that people can observe a reduction in the nasal discharge when they reduce the amount of calcium supplement, but there is no evidence that they are linked. Isn't the observation that "when I cut back on calcium, it went away" evidence that they are linked?

Because correlation does not equate to causation. Without strict control and consistent replication, you can not say one caused the other. As an example, banana and beer production has been shown to be statistically correlated with some amphibian extinctions in Central America (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17436.full). Does that mean that beer production is the cause of the extinctions? NO, it does not!

When people notice things about their animals that concern them and they make a change to try to fix the "issue", they rarely change only a single thing about their husbandry by shear virtue of the fact that they are then paying closer attention. There is no way for you to show based on a handful of anecdotal reports on the forums that the nasal salt deposits were not an isolated case that would have gone away naturally, that the subsequent reduction of the nasal salt deposits was a result of lowered calcium and not another subtle husbandry change, etc. For instance, salt and potassium contents of feeders can fluctuate based on what they were gutloaded with. A new batch of feeders fed off immediately after arrival could have very different nutrient loads than if they had been kept and fed for two weeks. Such a variation itself could cause and end high excretion levels from the nasal salt glands. Further, the keeper could very well be doing a better job of hydrating the animal now that they are concerned about the salt buildup around the nostrils, thus getting rid of it.

In nature. However, the situation of a captive reptile being fed ghosty white crickets is very unnatural.

So there is no evidence to support your theory, but all the evidence that suggests your theory is not valid is BS because it was done on wild animals? Unfortunately research rarely is done so extensively and specifically to meet every conceivable variation in all potential circumstances. The best available data suggests no link between dietary calcium and nasal salt excretions. There are better, and safer ways to get rid of the salt excretions than limiting the calcium supplements. Given that there is no evidence that the salt excretions are detrimental or indicative of a problem and in the face of no evidence that calcium levels in these cases are too high, I think recommending reduction of calcium supplementation to get rid of the salt deposits is completely careless and unjustified.

Chris

 

[Elizadolots]

Your first and last sentence above are in direct contradiction to each other. You can't have it both ways and clearly you are suggesting methods to get rid of the nasal salt discharge. Please refer to my previous post regarding my thoughts on such recommendations.

As I'm sure you know there are people who are quite adamant about not wanting the white crusts on their chameleons. I am not alone in suggesting reducing the amount of supplement used. I do make it a point to emphasize that they should not stop using calcium. I often suggest they dust half the crickets.

Because correlation does not equate to causation. Without strict control and consistent replication, you can not say one caused the other. As an example, banana and beer production has been shown to be statistically correlated with some amphibian extinctions in Central America (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17436.full). Does that mean that beer production is the cause of the extinctions? NO, it does not!

Sure, on big statistical studies you can say that. But if you switch shampoos and suddenly start having dandruff and switching back makes it go away then you can safely say there is a link between your shampoo and dandruff.

When people notice things about their animals that concern them and they make a change to try to fix the "issue", they rarely change only a single thing about their husbandry by shear virtue of the fact that they are then paying closer attention. There is no way for you to show based on a handful of anecdotal reports on the forums that the nasal salt deposits were not an isolated case that would have gone away naturally, that the subsequent reduction of the nasal salt deposits was a result of lowered calcium and not another subtle husbandry change, etc. For instance, salt and potassium contents of feeders can fluctuate based on what they were gutloaded with. A new batch of feeders fed off immediately after arrival could have very different nutrient loads than if they had been kept and fed for two weeks. Such a variation itself could cause and end high excretion levels from the nasal salt glands. Further, the keeper could very well be doing a better job of hydrating the animal now that they are concerned about the salt buildup around the nostrils, thus getting rid of it.

All true, but I can only say that some very well respected members have said "just cut back on supplements, that worked for me" over the years.

So there is no evidence to support your theory, but all the evidence that suggests your theory is not valid is BS because it was done on wild animals?

Does not Dr. Hazard's research suggest that some nasal salt glands adapt to the environmental salts the animal is exposed to growing up? Aren't the heavy environmental salts very different in a captive environment? Doesn't Dr. Hazard specifically state that "it is possible that individuals exposed to different ions early in life may retain a tendency to secrete different ions in a laboratory situation". Isn't calcium carbonate 2 ions?

Unfortunately research rarely is done so extensively and specifically to meet every conceivable variation in all potential circumstances. The best available data suggests no link between dietary calcium and nasal salt excretions. There are better, and safer ways to get rid of the salt excretions than limiting the calcium supplements. Given that there is no evidence that the salt excretions are detrimental or indicative of a problem and in the face of no evidence that calcium levels in these cases are too high, I think recommending reduction of calcium supplementation to get rid of the salt deposits is completely careless and unjustified.

Chris

Well, then a lot of very knowledgeable senior members (and I) have behaved been completely careless.

 

[Chris Anderson]

This debate is just going in circles. Replies to the same statements have been made repeatedly and I don't have time to rehash the same thing over and over again.

Go back and reread Hazard's book chapter. There is a lot of great information in it but you have to understand how to interpret it. When a scientific paper states that something "may be", "has not been studied", "is likely to" or that "it is possible that", it means that there is no statistical support for or that there is no data testing the idea. The parts you are harping all over are qualified with every one of those comments.

As has been said repeatedly, nasal salt gland secretions are normal, there is no evidence that dietary calcium levels have any effect on the salt gland excretions, there is no evidence that salt deposits around the nostrils are indicative of excessive calcium supplementation, recommending the reduction of calcium supplementation to reduce salt gland excretion has implications on calcium metabolism that could be detrimental to the chameleon's health, and increasing hydration levels will reduce excretion levels from the nasal salt glands without adverse effects. Ultimately recommending reducing calcium supplementation in an effort to reduce the result of a normal physiological process without testing if blood calcium levels are excessively high is completely irresponsible when a safer alternative means of reducing said discharge is known (i.e., increasing hydration levels).

Unless you can prove that increasing hydration is more detrimental than reducing calcium supplementation levels without testing blood calcium levels and can provide actual support for your theory, this will be my last reply to this thread. I simply do not have time to repeatedly reply to a circular argument that has no basis in fact.

Chris

 

[clarkrw3]

Saying that reducing calcium to get rid of nasal salt glad secretions is like saying your Virus went away with Antibiotics. When I prescribe Antibiotics to a patient with a known virus I know that they will get better in a week or so....same length as the antibiotic treatment. So does that mean the antibiotics fixed the problem?? NO!! It means the patient got better after the virus ran its course...the antibiotics did nothing in this instance except destroy helpful bacteria

Just because you do something and get a result doesn't mean that what you did caused the result....just saying

 

[Elizadolots]

Somehow I've gotten put up on the pedestal as the beast that dared suggest calcium might play a part in the white crusts that form on some chameleon's noses. Until very recently that was, actually, the standard response to the question “what is that white stuff?”....but then a bunch of studies were posted saying that wild reptiles don't have calcium in their “snalt”. One of those studies was Dr. Hazard's. I was surprised when I read it because, rather than conclusively saying the only salts capable of being expelled were sodium and phosphorus, she opened the door for other salts. That she has not done any conclusive studies does not negate the fact that she opened that door. I made the mistake (it seems now) of pointing out that she was being used as “proof” for something that she does not conclude to be true. Hilarity has ensued since. And, people have gotten less and less likely to comment on threads about the nasal expressions because, inevitably, hilarity happens. (Let's call it hilarity, its sounds so much better that way).

However, as stated, I am not the progenitor of this idea. I apologize to anyone who now wants to distance themselves from this topic (I can certainly see why you would) but I do want to point to some of the very well respected members who've suggested that white crusts around the nose can be stopped by reducing the amount of supplements.

First, and perhaps most obviously, this board has a link to Brad Ramsey's Raising Kitty blog under “basic husbandry” which is deemed an accurate resource. In the supplements section (http://raisingkittytheveiledchameleon.blogspot.com/2007/12/supplements.html ), Brad Ramsey says

Very often people ask about the crusty white discharge that has started to appear in their veiled chameleon's nostrils ...this is how the animal eliminates excess minerals and salts and is a sign of over-supplementation.

Others:

camimom https://www.chameleonforums.com/whi...panther-chameleons-nostrils-72443/#post677238

reduce the amoutn you dust with, and the*nose*crust*will stop. they should be lightly dusted, not coated and*white*looking (called ghosting)

Sommoner https://www.chameleonforums.com/white-stuff-my-chameleons-nostril-58488/#post547867

You might be over dusting your cham if you are getting the*white*flakes. It is just minerals your cham is getting rid of.*Remember, when dusting your crickets, they shouldn't look like little ghosts. They just be lightly dusted.

warpdrive https://www.chameleonforums.com/charlie-needs-advice-41571/#post387414

Some chams can be sensitive to supplements. Dust lighter and skip a day or two each week.

pssh https://www.chameleonforums.com/white-crust-coming-nose-36808/#post341211

In that case, try dusting every other day and see of it stops.

bridgeoffaith, right after pssh

It looks like extra supplement. You said you feed him about 10ish feeders a day. Try to dust only half of them with calcium and the other half with none or as pssh said, you could go to every other day. They release extra supplements through their nostrils. Dust lightly, if they end up looking like little ghosts, you went to far.

Miss Lily https://www.chameleonforums.com/white-crust-around-nose-27823/#post254497

This is usually associated with too much supplementation. Chams excrete excess salt, etc, via the nostrils which is seen as the*white*crust. It is not uncommon. How often do you supplement and what with? The insects should only be dusted very lightly - if they look like ghosts, then you've overdone it.

Syn https://www.chameleonforums.com/help-kumar-has-white-nasal-discharge-67504/#post628402

Could be salt, could be over-supplementation.

BocaJan https://www.chameleonforums.com/white-crystals-nose-12979/#post105126

Mine do that too when I have given them too much calcium. Do not put so much on the crickets when you dust them that they look like a ghost. Use a teeny amount. The*nose*is how they expel the excess.

Chase https://www.chameleonforums.com/i-need-some-help-white-nostrils-11030/#post87627

OD on that Cocaine. Just kidding*. Usually it is from oversupplementing.

Again, I apologize if it looks like I'm trying to take you down with me.

If, on the other hand, you know you've posted about reducing supplements to make the crust go away and I didn't mention you, I'm so sorry....though a bit worried that you think my sinking ship is one you should climb on...but, hey, I'll take any company I can get.

These are all people I have come to respect for their knowledge and concern. None of them are newbies (even in the older threads) who are frantically reworking entire set ups in an effort to stop the dreaded white crusts. I value their observational skills and give credence to their conclusions.

So...if I'm crazy wrong, well...I'm in very good company with people I respect. That's not so horrible I guess.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Just to clarify, I'll be the first to admit that I've been guilty over the years of perpetuating commonly held misconceptions that are frequently stated as fact on forums for no other reason than my own ignorance at the time. I try very hard now, however, to make sure the information I give is based on the very best information possible and that frequently has conflicted with the standard of what is said by many who are passing on standard tenants of captive husbandry. I don't think these misconceptions are perpetuated maliciously in any way, but I think these misconceptions should be exposed as such and once better information is available, I don't think there is an excuse to continue perpetuation inaccurate or unsubstantiated information as fact. I also understand that sometimes it is hard to come to terms with the fact that what you've believed for so long may be completely bogus, but I think its important to examine the information available to make an educated assessment of each scenario.

Chris

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

I was surprised when I read it because, rather than conclusively saying the only salts capable of being expelled were sodium and phosphorus, she opened the door for other salts. That she has not done any conclusive studies does not negate the fact that she opened that door.

Yes it does actually. I can speculate that if I try hard enugh I can fly. Since no one has done a study that proves specifically that I can't then that means the possibility remains that I'll take flight any day now. That's your logic.

At one point many respected people also said the world was flat. Since everyone said it no one questioned it, and the rumor perpetuated itself. How many times have we seen bad information posted on the internet (like that Jackson's can be housed together) that people keep finding and repeating? It happens every day. Someone asks a question, someone else googles it and provides the answer they found. No critical thinking required. Same with this issue. All of the anecdotal evidence doesn't ever account for any other changes in the husbandry so they are poor evidence at best.

The point of this thread was specifically to address this issue scientifically rather than just blindly going along with and repeated what was speculated. I did not believe this theory and spent a lot of time finding the evidence to support that it was not a factual theory, just speculation. I cannot speak for what the members you quoted have to say about the new evidence brought to light. What I can say is that I hoped to help people better understand this issue and the physiology controlling it so that we can all be better educated and make better recommendations. Just because something has been said over and over does not make it accurate or the highest standard of care. Our goal should be to improve husbandry and captive conditions and better understand our animals, and that only comes with research. It is not easy to change a paradigm, especially if people fight it just for the sake of fighting it. A very active internet forum incorporating keepers of so many species in so many places is the very best place to disseminate knowledge. It is irresponsible to blindly charge on ignoring new information just to keep repeating outdated information. Back in the 80s it was practically impossible to keep chameleons alive. We've come so far since then in learning about chameleons and keeping them alive longer due to the knowledge we've gained. We have to keep that going!

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

Just to clarify, I'll be the first to admit that I've been guilty over the years of perpetuating commonly held misconceptions that are frequently stated as fact on forums for no other reason than my own ignorance at the time. I try very hard now, however, to make sure the information I give is based on the very best information possible and that frequently has conflicted with the standard of what is said by many who are passing on standard tenants of captive husbandry. I don't think these misconceptions are perpetuated maliciously in any way, but I think these misconceptions should be exposed as such and once better information is available, I don't think there is an excuse to continue perpetuation inaccurate or unsubstantiated information as fact. I also understand that sometimes it is hard to come to terms with the fact that what you've believed for so long may be completely bogus, but I think its important to examine the information available to make an educated assessment of each scenario.

Chris

You said that much better than I did! I too have held up misconceptions only to be proven wrong later. It's a big hit on pride for sure. But you just have to suck it up and make sure you are better educated the next time you make a claim so you are bringing the most up-to-date information to the discussion for the sake of everyone involved.

 

[Elizadolots]

Ferret:

Yes it does actually.

How? I understand that you proposed a perfectly ludicrous thing and said "that isn't reasonable" but Dr. Hazard proposed a quite reasonable thing: if the gland is capable of adapting from a marine environment to a desert environment (each of which has very different salt profiles) then it might well be able to adapt to any salt profile.

Is she insane? Is she irresponsible? Nothing in her CV or online reputation would suggest that, so why wouldn't her proposal have merit as a theory?

I find it amusing that you would suggest I was clinging to an old school of thought when you are unwilling to accept the idea that anything you can't find in a book can't possibly be true. This despite the fact that you really have to know that captive reptiles have not been studied and documented well at all. That field is literally a blank book waiting for you to write it.

Even in humans, the single most studied animal on earth, ideas on calcium supplementation are changing radically. Five years ago a diagnosis of osteoporosis resulted in a prescription for a calcium carbonate dietary supplement. Now, it results in a prescription for D3 and an order to eat lots of green veggies and drink lots of milk. Calcium supplements are no longer routinely recommended if they are recommended at all. So, I think it's odd to believe that the current medical knowledge about chameleons and calcium supplements is somehow perfect and unlikely to change.

I will take a moment to object to your characterization of all those fine posters as people who simply google something and then pass it along. They are all long time chameleon keepers with years of experience. I have no reason to discredit what they say and I fail to see why you would.

And, finally....just because it's fun to repeat myself over and over and over again: the only problem I have is presenting the "It's not calcium" theory as a FACT when there is (whether it's a popular idea or not) evidence to suggest it might not be true. If it were presented it as a theory, none of this hilarity would have ever happened. Heck I suspect if what Dr. Hazard concluded from her studies had not been utterly misrepresented, hilarity would probably not have happened.

Chris, first, thank you for your respectful participation in this thread. It has been a welcome addition. I've really appreciated your thoughtful responses even though we are disagreeing.

Second, I think when you draw out the timeline on stuff...you might have to concede that your study of chameleon salt expressions falls a bit on the OLD side of the graph, so maybe, just maybe, these people dealing with chameleons in the 2000s who report reducing supplementation reduces nasal discharge are, in fact, the new information. 1973 vs. 2011....seems suggestive to me.

it is hard to come to terms with the fact that what you've believed for so long may be completely bogus, but I think its important to examine the information available to make an educated assessment of each scenario.

Yes, it is. And to do that one needs to be open to new ideas and willing to think a bit outside the box.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

How? I understand that you proposed a perfectly ludicrous thing and said "that isn't reasonable" but Dr. Hazard proposed a quite reasonable thing: if the gland is capable of adapting from a marine environment to a desert environment (each of which has very different salt profiles) then it might well be able to adapt to any salt profile.

Is she insane? Is she irresponsible? Nothing in her CV or online reputation would suggest that, so why wouldn't her proposal have merit as a theory?

Because its not even a true proposal! Nowhere in this paper by her, or any of her others does she ever mention calcium. You picked one sentence of pure conjecture without even a shred of evidence to support it and completely threw out all her other work and data that says the exact opposite. I would be very upset if someone did this to one of my studies. She looked at those very different species in very different environments and found the exact same salts in both, just in different concentrations. No others! That is evidence against your proposal. I have over 400 papers that all say the exact same thing (including 99.9% of Hazard's sentences) so that puts your odds at this being correct at less than 0.0025%. If we want to actually break it down further since you are fixated on one sentence, not even a whole paper to support your idea then the percentage is too small to calculate. What in her CV says she is better than everyone else who has ever studied this subject? You'd think she was your sister by the way you revere her.

Can you uphold the theory without her paper? If you threw it out as an outlier could you find it echoed in any other paper to support it? One sentence in one paper against hundreds is literally nothing. You have to have more than that to uphold a theory.

This despite the fact that you really have to know that captive reptiles have not been studied and documented well at all.

Who cares? It doesn't matter if it's in wild nature or captivity. Can you name any example of an animal that has a body part that physiologically functions completely differently in a captive setting than its wild counterpart? Plus I gave you a study on captive iguanas fed a diet of high calcium dog food that still did not secrete calcium so that argument is stale.

So, I think it's odd to believe that the current medical knowledge about chameleons and calcium supplements is somehow perfect and unlikely to change.

That's exactly what I'm saying...the change we're talking about is trying to happen and you're fighting it like I've just told you to go kill all the chameleons.

I will take a moment to object to your characterization of all those fine posters as people who simply google something and then pass it along. They are all long time chameleon keepers with years of experience. I have no reason to discredit what they say and I fail to see why you would.

It's not discrediting them for the 8th time. It's not taking into account anything else in their husbandry. Give me 2 chameleons with nasal salt deposits and do nothing different to either of them except decrease the supplementation of one and not the other and then measure how long it takes for them to go away in each. How do we know it doesn't just go away on its own given some time and rehydration, just like using antibiotics on a viral infection? It was going to go away anyway, but since you used antibiotics does that mean that's what cured it? No.

Heck I suspect if what Dr. Hazard concluded from her studies had not been utterly misrepresented, hilarity would probably not have happened.

I agree completely. If her entire work was considered instead of just a single sentence then maybe we wouldn't be here.

Second, I think when you draw out the timeline on stuff...you might have to concede that your study of chameleon salt expressions falls a bit on the OLD side of the graph, so maybe, just maybe, these people dealing with chameleons in the 2000s who report reducing supplementation reduces nasal discharge are, in fact, the new information. 1973 vs. 2011....seems suggestive to me.

So we should just throw out all the data and all the very carefully designed studies specifically about this topic that are all extremely consistent with each other for anecdotal evidence? That is the least scientific way to approach something ever.

You have zero evidence that calcium is excreted whereas Chris and I have loads of evidence that says otherwise. No it is not proof, but you're not ever going to get the proof you want unless you hire someone to do the study. I'm not ever saying it is a fact, what I'm saying is that it's a fact that there is no true evidence to support that it's calcium. And that is true. There is no reason for calcium to be excreted by the salt gland physiologically, and that is the biggest point. There is no research that supports it, and anecdotal evidence alone never trumps hundreds of carefully designed studies that are all consistent. Dont you think it's a little odd that hundreds of studies have found the same conclusions despite using all kinds of different variables (including other salts) but not one shows anything that deviates? If Hazard really intended for that one statement to mean the gland could do anything why hasn't she delved into that at all with any subsequent studies? That seems like it would be the thing to do - make a novel discovery and make a name for yourself. Why didn't that happen? If that was what I truly meant by making a statement like that I would expand on it a little since it would go against everything research by everyone else has shown. You don't just make statements like that lightly if that's what you mean by them.

As I'm sure you know there are people who are quite adamant about not wanting the white crusts on their chameleons. I am not alone in suggesting reducing the amount of supplement used. I do make it a point to emphasize that they should not stop using calcium. I often suggest they dust half the crickets.

Actually I have never seen anyone say 'I must get rid of them'. It's 'why is this happening and does it mean there's a problem?' instead. And I thought you said you've never said to decrease calcium??

Your argument is circular and flawed. Every time one of your arguments gets shot down you move onto the next one and now we've come full circle. You've exhausted both Chris and I. We tried to reason with you and we tried to plead with you and we tried to commiserate with you. Despite Chris echoing everything I've already said you thank him and continue to argue with me. Your personal vendetta is not worth the time it takes to go over the same things with you over and over and over. People reading the thread can read through the discussion and make their own decisions.

This is the perfect reply to the issue:

Ultimately, the crust around the nose is harmless. They'll snort it off if it starts to cover a nostril so any effort to make it go away is largely about aesthetics. I fully understand wanting the animal to look as pretty as it can, but you need to make sure you don't sacrifice necessary calcium supplementation in a quest for beauty.

Which is why I gave you rep points for it. Leave the argument out and go with that.

 

[Elizadolots]

Because its not even a true proposal! Nowhere in this paper by her, or any of her others does she ever*mention*calcium.

She doesn't mention any ion...she mentions “individuals exposed to different ions”. I take that to mean ions that are different from those she mentioned in her study.

How do you conclude that she means “any ion but calcium”?

Really, I've asked this before and you've never responded to it.

You can wave your hands in the air and cry “she didn't mention Calcium” until the cows come home, but it doesn't change the reality that she said “different ions” and sort of by definition of the word “different” means ones she didn't mention in her study.

Can you uphold the theory without her paper?

Nope. Don't need to either as my only point is that there are other theories.

Who cares? It doesn't matter if it's in wild nature or captivity. Can you name any example of an animal that has a body part that physiologically functions completely differently in a captive setting than its wild counterpart? Plus I gave you a study on*captive*iguanas fed a diet of high calcium dog food that still did not secrete calcium so that argument is stale.

Well...I guess I have to go back and reread that study. That's not going to happen tonight.

The captive environment is environmentally very different from the wild environment. When the question is a response to environmental elements, that's critical. I'm a tad surprised that you don't think that's important.

That's exactly what I'm saying...the change we're talking about is trying to happen and you're fighting it like I've just told you to go kill all the chameleons

You're advocating basing all care on a study from 1973 and ignoring all reports by people who got chameleons after that....how am I the person not seeing the future?

It's not discrediting them for the 8th time

Yes, it is. They say that reducing supplemental calcium makes the crust go away, you say the supplemental calcium has nothing to do with it.

So, that is discrediting them.

I know you don't want to be seen as discrediting them, but you are. Own it or recognize that it's wrong, but standing by it and claim that it's not discrediting is weak.

Give me 2 chameleons with nasal salt deposits and do nothing different to either of them except decrease the supplementation of one and not the other and then measure how long it takes for them to go away in each. How do we know it doesn't just go away on its own given some time and rehydration, just like using antibiotics on a viral infection? It was going to go away anyway, but since you used antibiotics does that mean that's what cured it? No.

A) You assume that the posters are rather silly for not considering other changes....I know that this is possible for some, but I pointed to people who are known to be responsible, intelligent owners (If I'd just included everyone who'd ever said it the list would have been many pages). So, I think your assumption is insulting to them and, as I hold them in high regard, I don't appreciate it.

B) Gee...it seems to me that someone with multiple chameleons who express these salts could run that test. As the assumption is that a whole bunch of calcium carbonate is harmless, why not try it? Why not use the scientific method and test the concept? Note that I don't qualify as having the right chameleons. I have 2 that are, theoretically, captive bred and both are montanes and they don't seem to have this issue. All the cases I recall reading have been veiled or panthers (I could be brainfarting on that issue...it's possible that there have been “nose crust” issues with the montanes and I've just failed to recall them). But why not just ghost up the feeders for a week and see what happens? Please do try to do so with both a wild caught and a captive bred animal to be utterly perfect.

So we should just throw out all the data and all the very carefully designed studies specifically about this topic that are all extremely consistent with each other for anecdotal evidence? That is the least scientific way to approach something ever.

There has not been such a study....at least, no such study comes up under my many varied google searches on this. Can you post a link to a study about captive reptiles fed a diet rich in calcium carbonates? If it turns out to be behind a paywall, don't worry, I won't chastise you for it. I will happily pay up to $40 to read such a study.

Actually I have never seen anyone say 'I must get rid of them'

I don't think I've ever seen that either. Can you point to any case where I said that someone did? I believe I requested you stick to factual posting when it came to me, exactly how specific do I need to be to stop you from utterly misrepresenting what I write?

I have seen people say they wanted to get rid of them and if you search the forum for “white crust on nose” you will see those threads too.

Your argument is circular and flawed. Every time one of your arguments gets shot down you move onto the next one and now we've come full circle. You've exhausted both Chris and I.

No, my theory simply disagrees with your theory so you hate it. I do appreciate you confirming my suspicion that you brought Chris into this.

If someone simply disagreeing with you and providing scientific basis for their position exhausts you...well...I don't know what to suggest for you...

btw, on the rep point....so lame. I'd posted earlier in that thread that calcium should not be withheld...I've posted that idea over and over and over without ever getting a rep point from you. You did it this time to "prove" that you would treat me like all other posters (I have that PM saved), but in fact, you don't do that routinely at all.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

Nope. Don't need to either as my only point is that there are other theories.

No, your point is there is credence to the theory that calcium carbonate supplementation in captive chameleons causes nasal crusts. That's an absurdly specific conclusion from a totally ambiguous statement that is not even clear on intent when taken out of context.

The captive environment is environmentally very different from the wild environment. When the question is a response to environmental elements, that's critical.

Yes the environment is different, but the animals aren't. Can you name any example of an animal that has a body part that physiologically functions completely differently in a captive setting than its wild counterpart?

Yes, it is. They say that reducing supplemental calcium makes the crust go away, you say the supplemental calcium has nothing to do with it.

Correlation does not equal causation. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

Gee...it seems to me that someone with multiple chameleons who express these salts could run that test. As the assumption is that a whole bunch of calcium carbonate is harmless, why not try it? Why not use the scientific method and test the concept? Note that I don't qualify as having the right chameleons. I have 2 that are, theoretically, captive bred and both are montanes and they don't seem to have this issue. All the cases I recall reading have been veiled or panthers (I could be brainfarting on that issue...it's possible that there have been “nose crust” issues with the montanes and I've just failed to recall them). But why not just ghost up the feeders for a week and see what happens? Please do try to do so with both a wild caught and a captive bred animal to be utterly perfect.

Take a seat because I'm about to blow your mind. My female panther laid eggs 3 weeks ago and since then I've been ghosting her crickets completely. And not just hers. My male panther and male veiled have been getting crickets so dusted there's a white spot on the bottom of the cage from where the crickets drop out of the cup. Panther female is 10 months old, panther male is 3 years old and may have renal insufficiency, which would possibly decrease calcium elimination, and 5 year old veiled. This has been for 3 weeks now, at every feeding. Guess how many nasal crust deposits I've seen on any of the 3 of them? Big fat ZERO.

Can you post a link to a study about captive reptiles fed a diet rich in calcium carbonates?

Umm that's what I've been saying along. There isn't one. So you cannot make assumptions about something without any evidence to support it. Over 400 papers have examined variables to affect secretions, and they all said the same thing: sodium and potassium and nothing else in any significance. Even when given something in high concentration other than strictly sodium and chloride, the gland was triggered to secrete more sodium and chloride due to higher osmolality of body fluid (which calcium does not contribute to). This was demonstrated with a variety of hypertonic substances: mannitol, sucrose, sodium sulfate (salt), ammonium chloride (salt), and lithium chloride (salt). Interestingly other hypertonic substances were given that did not affect the gland’s rate of secretion despite increased plasma osmolality: potassium chloride (salt), urea, glucose, physiologic sodium chloride, and dextran. I think this is important because even salts and non-salts that do affect osmolality do not necessarily cause an effect on salt gland secretion. And calcium carbonate does not even have an effect on osmolality. Calculated osmolarity = 2 Na + 2 K + Glucose + Urea ( all in mmol/L)

I don't think I've ever seen that either. Can you point to any case where I said that someone did?

Then why did you say "As I'm sure you know there are people who are quite adamant about not wanting the white crusts on their chameleons" if you in fact have never seen that?

No, my theory simply disagrees with your theory so you hate it.

This statement tells me two things: 1. You don't know me at all even in the slightest capacity if you think I would be that petty. I care about science and I care about proper care of animals and their health. Your theory and recommendation based on it go against all those things, and that makes me care or else I would not spend all this time providing you factual evidence. 2. You have run out of anything of substance on which to argue again so you've gone back into personal insults.

I do appreciate you confirming my suspicion that you brought Chris into this.

I had absolutely nothing to do with that. I was just as surprised as you were to see the thread active again. So maybe you should consider what it means that two highly educated people both said the same things about this issue without ever even communicating about it. It's a bit insulting to Chris that you think I could put words in his mouth.

If someone simply disagreeing with you and providing scientific basis for their position exhausts you...well...I don't know what to suggest for you...

WHAT scientific basis??? You have yet to provide any. Anecdotes are not scientific evidence.

I have that PM saved.

Save away sweetie, save away.

She doesn't mention any ion...she mentions “individuals exposed to different ions”. I take that to mean ions that are different from those she mentioned in her study.

That is a HUGE assumption. I've responded to it plenty of times. The study was on a population expressing primarily sodium with less potassium, and the other primarily potassium with less sodium. Thus different ions causing different excretions...within the boundaries consistent across over 35 species just of reptiles from many different environments and life styles investigated by many different authors.

Let's look further at some of Hazard's other studies...
Ion Secretion by Salt Glands of Desert Iguanas
She refers to "cations" purely in the sense of sodium and potassium only and is very clear about that specific fact on the first page.

Secretion by the nasal salt glands of two insectivorous lizard species is initiated by an ecologically relevant dietary ion, chloride
This abstract is pretty darn specific about what she means by "cations" as well.

Salt Gland Secretion by An Intertidal Lizard Uta Tumidarostra
Pretty darn specific there as well. Even about species from very different environments. Good description of the gland's function and why calcium wouldn't have any effect on it either.

All of her research (and hundreds of other research) illustrates the importance of osmolality control influencing the secretion and efficacy of the nasal salt gland. So when calcium has no influence on osmolality why would the gland be affected by it in the slightest?

 

[Elizadolots]

No, your point is there is credence to the theory that calcium carbonate supplementation in captive chameleons causes nasal crusts. That's an absurdly specific conclusion from a totally ambiguous statement that is not even clear on intent when taken out of context.

So, now, in addition to fabricating posts for me, you are defining my views? My point is that there are other theories. You state your theory as fact.

I might be wrong in my theory. I happily and willingly concede that. You ensconced your theory as a FAQ and labeled my theory as a MYTH.

Yes the environment is different, but the animals aren't. Can you name any example of an animal that has a body part that physiologically functions completely differently in a captive setting than its wild counterpart?

Not off the top of my head, but Dr. Hazard proved that an animal's body part would function completely differently when put into a different environment...

So, I don't think I have to.

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation"]Correlation does not equal causation[/URL]. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.



Take a seat because I'm about to blow your mind. My female panther laid eggs 3 weeks ago and since then I've been ghosting her crickets completely. And not just hers. My male panther and male veiled have been getting crickets so dusted there's a white spot on the bottom of the cage from where the crickets drop out of the cup. Panther female is 10 months old, panther male is 3 years old and may have renal insufficiency, which would possibly decrease calcium elimination, and 5 year old veiled. This has been for 3 weeks now, at every feeding. Guess how many nasal crust deposits I've seen on any of the 3 of them? Big fat ZERO.

Hmmm...well, the main thing that blows my mind is that you would treat your males exactly as you would your female who just laid. As your female just laid, I would expect her to need the calcium. Are your males captive raised or wild caught as adults?

Umm that's what I've been saying along. There isn't one. So you cannot make assumptions about something without any evidence to support it.

That is what I've been saying. You cannot make assumptions without a study.

Over 400 papers have examined variables to affect secretions, and they all said the same thing: sodium and potassium and nothing else in any significance. Even when given something in high concentration other than strictly sodium and chloride, the gland was triggered to secrete more sodium and chloride due to higher osmolality of body fluid (which calcium does not contribute to). This was demonstrated with a variety of hypertonic substances: mannitol, sucrose, sodium sulfate (salt), ammonium chloride (salt), and lithium chloride (salt). Interestingly other hypertonic substances were given that did not affect the gland’s rate of secretion despite increased plasma osmolality: potassium chloride (salt), urea, glucose, physiologic sodium chloride, and dextran. I think this is important because even salts and non-salts that do affect osmolality do not necessarily cause an effect on salt gland secretion. And calcium carbonate does not even have an effect on osmolality. Calculated osmolarity = 2 Na + 2 K + Glucose + Urea ( all in mmol/L)

Yeah...that was long and sciencey....The ONLY paper to address the issue of the gland's ability to adapt suggests that it could adapt to any other ion and calcium bicarbonate is an ion. Note that calcium is not the same as calcium bicarbonate (as you know). Even in humans, the most studied animals on the planets, the differences in processing calcium vs. calcium bicarbonate are becoming more and more evident in just the last couple of years

Then why did you say "As I'm sure you know there are people who are quite adamant about not wanting the white crusts on their chameleons" if you in fact have never seen that?

I've seen people being adamant about not wanting the crusts, that does not equal people saying "I must lose the crust".

This statement tells me two things: 1. You don't know me at all even in the slightest capacity if you think I would be that petty.

You suggested my advice contributed to the death of Jade's chameleon. Not only did I not ever give Jade advice, I responded to her suggestion that cutting down calcium supplements would stop the crusts with this post:

With regard to the white crust and decreasing your calcium supplementation. As your chameleon has an MBD issue, I don't think you should do that. The white crusts are unimportant. They might be unappealing looking, but they are not harmful. You can try upping the misting to see if that helps them go away and it doesn't hurt to brush them off with a finger tip or Q-tip, but there isn't a need to do so

So, really, I think there is no depth of pettiness to which you would not sink. Outright lying and accusing me of contributing to the death of a chameleon is about as low as it gets on this board, so, please do not pretend I have any reason to hold you in high regard.

That is a HUGE assumption. I've responded to it plenty of times.

No, it's not, and no you haven't.

The study was on a population expressing primarily sodium with less potassium, and the other primarily potassium with less sodium. Thus different ions causing different excretions...

Yes, and she concluded that it was possible that animals primarily exposed to other ions would excrete those.

Let's look further at some of Hazard's other studies...
Ion Secretion by Salt Glands of Desert Iguanas
She refers to "cations" purely in the sense of sodium and potassium only and is very clear about that specific fact on the first page.

Secretion by the nasal salt glands of two insectivorous lizard species is initiated by an ecologically relevant dietary ion, chloride
This abstract is pretty darn specific about what she means by "cations" as well.

Salt Gland Secretion by An Intertidal Lizard Uta Tumidarostra
Pretty darn specific there as well. Even about species from very different environments. Good description of the gland's function and why calcium wouldn't have any effect on it either.

All of her research (and hundreds of other research) illustrates the importance of osmolality control influencing the secretion and efficacy of the nasal salt gland. So when calcium has no influence on osmolality why would the gland be affected by it in the slightest?

It's late, so I'll have to look into those tomorrow. Based on your extraordinarily inaccurate reporting of my words, I have little doubt that I will find you ignored something.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

You've reverted back to personal attacks and childish responses ignoring the science at hand. I'll argue science with you, but I won't just argue for the sake of arguing. I misspoke about Jade's chameleon and I apologize, but since you were telling people to decrease calcium and used Jade's cham as an example for that being a successful example of following that advice I thought it should be known how that turned out. Since you're so big on anecdotal evidence. A "long and sciency" response is what I should be getting from you if you want to argue this with the same credibility.

You wanted me to ghost my crickets to see what would happen, and I did. Now you want to chastise me for it? Sorry it didn't turn out how you want but that's a bit ridiculous. I have my reasons for what I do and I don't owe you an explanation for anything if you're going to be like this. Based on your value of evidence I just proved the theory wrong since none of mine have developed crusts.

The fact is every reptile studied has had potassium and sodium as the contents of the salts, and this is quite a well studied topic, which is exceedingly rare in reptile science, so it holds more weight. That is a fact, deal with it. And that's including animals from many different environments and families, including captive iguanas and those exposed to other ions and substances. So I can extrapolate that to others and conclude that chameleons should be no different. If you want to go against what is pretty well established you have to do more than say 'it could happen'. Tell me why it could happen and prove it with a defensible scientific theory. Calcium shouldn't have an effect of the gland since it doesn't have an effect on osmolality, so you are going to have to do more than say 'maybe' and misquote one paper and want me to say that's a fact. She didn't prove there could be a different function (need an example of a reptile with crusts that have been analyzed that deviates to be able to prove), she theorized (unsubstantiated, no proof). You keep saying she proved it and that is wrong. Please stick to the science and stop just attacking me.