Lunatuck
Established Member
I've been thinking about something for a while. Before I come right out with it, I want to say that attempting to replicate a species natural environment is the best for of husbandry. But, perhaps, there is something better.
This first popped into my mind when listening to a Breeder Podcast on herping in Florida. My apologies for not remembering the exact episode. The discussion was about why Chameleons seem to thrive in places like Florida. The guest mentioned that Florida's environment wasn't so similar to Veiled chameleons natural environment, but it still provided the ability for a chameleon to survive and even thrive.
So I think back to my reefkeeping days. When I first began keeping reefs in about 1990, we did our best to match the natural environment. Seawater is 1.022 SG, so we matched it. The seawater has a specific % of trace minerals, so we did our best to match it. After a few years, and some experimentation, many reefkeepers discovered that raising sg to 1.025 or higher helped with coral and fish health. The salt companies began modifying their recipes to have more of certain minerals that get used up in a closed system. Lighting began with a spectrum that would best imitate the sun. We would supplement the light to make it more attractive, but the supplements were superficial. some fluorescent actinics to help the coral pop. Now, we seem to favor bluer lights, and with the ability to pump calcium into our systems, we are getting insane growth rates. But all these examples are non-naturalistic.
There have been some naturalistic advances. I'm a big fan of refugiums. Basically the reef version of a bioactive enclosure. Live bugs to clean organic matter and plants separated from the system used to use up the NO3 and be harvested. The use of live rock is another example, though at this point, synthetic rock can be just as effective.
So as I constantly try and improve my husbandry, I wonder if there are situations where a non naturalistic approach can actually be healthier to our chams. Any thoughts on this? Can anyone thing of an example where a naturalistic approach to a certain aspect of husbandry isn't appropriate? The best example I can think of is going to a veteranarian.
This first popped into my mind when listening to a Breeder Podcast on herping in Florida. My apologies for not remembering the exact episode. The discussion was about why Chameleons seem to thrive in places like Florida. The guest mentioned that Florida's environment wasn't so similar to Veiled chameleons natural environment, but it still provided the ability for a chameleon to survive and even thrive.
So I think back to my reefkeeping days. When I first began keeping reefs in about 1990, we did our best to match the natural environment. Seawater is 1.022 SG, so we matched it. The seawater has a specific % of trace minerals, so we did our best to match it. After a few years, and some experimentation, many reefkeepers discovered that raising sg to 1.025 or higher helped with coral and fish health. The salt companies began modifying their recipes to have more of certain minerals that get used up in a closed system. Lighting began with a spectrum that would best imitate the sun. We would supplement the light to make it more attractive, but the supplements were superficial. some fluorescent actinics to help the coral pop. Now, we seem to favor bluer lights, and with the ability to pump calcium into our systems, we are getting insane growth rates. But all these examples are non-naturalistic.
There have been some naturalistic advances. I'm a big fan of refugiums. Basically the reef version of a bioactive enclosure. Live bugs to clean organic matter and plants separated from the system used to use up the NO3 and be harvested. The use of live rock is another example, though at this point, synthetic rock can be just as effective.
So as I constantly try and improve my husbandry, I wonder if there are situations where a non naturalistic approach can actually be healthier to our chams. Any thoughts on this? Can anyone thing of an example where a naturalistic approach to a certain aspect of husbandry isn't appropriate? The best example I can think of is going to a veteranarian.
Last edited: