# Frogs & Toads > Tree Frogs >  Uvb and D3

## Diver

As an extension to the discussion on another thread regarding the merits of providing UVB, it was suggested to start a separate thread on the subject. After a fairly brief search I've found a number of scientific articles which may be of interest to those who are unaware of them. I'll dig them out when I'm not at work and on my phone, but for now here's an interesting read from this very forum:

http://www.frogforum.net/showthread.php?t=24225

----------


## Xavier

Yeah, I noticed when my Five-lined skinks had actually nice UVB they got this great coloration, but now because my bulbs (and lamps) both died, they started losing color. Especially the female one, she had these glorious stripes, and her tail was still blue, but now her stripes are faint, and her tail is a blueish gray color

----------


## Lija

No discussion on UVB needed, it had been beaten to death topic already. 

 Once again - different species have different requirements. What's good and must for one, might be really bad for the other. 
 Albino morphs of any species can not have any UVB at all, for some species exposure might be harmful, for the others lack of UVB will be harmful and even deadly. 

Just one of the useful readings available to general public with summary of data and scientific papers available
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/UV-B.html

----------

jasonm96, Krispy

----------


## Diver

Well I guess if nobody wants to discuss it fair enough. But that link is eleven years old and there have been many advances in scientific study since then. Perhaps it's being closed off to new information that causes people to lag behind in modern husbandry techniques. 
Is this forum not an appropriate place to discuss better ways to care for frogs?

----------


## Jen

This forum is an appropriate place- but recent conversations have not been "appropriate" in tone and have been causing more disruption than learning.  When it comes to technology being used with the care of living beings, there will always be debate.

----------

Cliygh and Mia 2

----------


## Diver

Debate is a good thing, surely? I didn't see what apparently turned into an argument, just some deleted comments and an apology.
Then: There is no need to argue, but if you do want to prove your point you are welcome to do so in respectful manner in a separate thread. You are welcome to share your scientific data, nobody knows everything ( even vets**and personally I would love to hear new data I might not be aware yet.

But apparently this invitation to start a separate thread to discuss new scientific discoveries in a respectful manner has now been retracted.

----------


## Jen

Debate is fine when those debating can keep the posts courteous and informative. Lately they have been quickly turning argumentative and the "deleted posts" you referenced were ones that had dwindled down to including name calling which is not helpful in anyway to anyone. 

Generally starting a separate thread to try and gear the conversation back to it's original intent is fine but when the topic has been a hot button for some lately, we watch them carefully to make sure they also do not resort to inappropriate behavior.  Sometimes others need time to let their blood cool down a bit, more threads can spread the fire so to speak.

----------


## Amy

I do think it can be a quality discussion so long as it is kept polite.  The other thread was not kept polite, hence the deleted post.

There are current studies that still show both sides of the debate.  Studies from 2014-2015 still show issues with embryonic development and death in amphibians when exposed to uv.  Studies from 2014-2015 also support uv.  There is some suggestion that pesticides in the environment inhibit the amphibians to the point that they do not properly shelter themselves or their eggs from uv, but that is still at the level of hypothesis and suggestion rather than having provided proof last I read.  There are a few that would make interesting reads, but they cost money.  Because they are fairly new, I have not found other sites who have purchased, read, and reviewed the study for others to be able to access some of the information for free yet. 

Either way, your frogs are thriving with UV, my frogs are thriving without UV and with calc +D3 supplements alone.  Many people have the same experiences as both of us.

----------


## Krispy

Well, there are so many sides to this coin. Like here's a good one. Even our 3 unplanted tanks which are our whites(moe larry, and shemp), the beardies(monster and lil bruddah), or the pacman(bigweld) we also include a full spectrum bulb. Our belief if the closest to natural sun we can get, the better. Glass reflects uv, not absorbs it, remember this, so with nice clean glass, we still 'believe' that they absorb small amounts of all the uv no matter what. Keeping in mind uvb needs d3 and all that. The bulbs do not provide what they fully need. They aren't the sun, and no matter how hard we try with our planted viv's its still not real nature. So on top of all the uv everywhere we rotate supplements every other feeding. From regular calcium, to calcium+d3 to fill in the gaps. Then theres gut loading their food. Ah. Another odd thing we do. Well more my doing than the wifes. I like to do an electrolyte soak once a month for all my animals. We use zoo med electrolyte. Needed? Probably not. Is it good for their immune systems and full of other important vitamins they can soak in, yes. 
Many moons with snakes. About 3-4 years now with frogs. 2bps, mom wanted my red tail so i hooked her up, firebellies,red eyes, whites, pacman, anoles, longtails, and damaged beardies we adopted from petsmart. 2 casualties. 1 was a whites from petco in his dying throws from mbd, the other a baby pacman(poor aunt fanny) fell victim to a power outage while we were away. Also another reason i been banging my head over solar. 
But overall, no real health issues, good checkups, no, well anything. Maybe its overkill, but it works out great for us. So we think uv helps.

----------


## Diver

So, if everyone has now calmed down....    :Smile:   While not a party to the recent heated arguments, I have seen incorrect advice being given lately which could do with being addressed and the way to address it is to try and give the correct information rather than attacking the person involved as that just causes bad feeling and an argumentative stance which it not conducive to a learning experience. I'd like to think that everyone on here is receptive to new information even if it changes what they thought they knew, I certainly am because it from this that we learn more about the subject that many are clearly passionate about. Opinions certainly vary, but opinions are not facts so perhaps we can straighten out a few scientifically verifiable facts that we can hopefully all agree on regarding this subject.

To reiterate some of the comments from Dr. Ivan Alfonso on this thread:  http://www.frogforum.net/showthread.php?t=24225

Frogs need calcium. Without it they will suffer from a variety of maladies and will ultimately die. In the wild they would obtain this from a varied diet but in captivity with the most freely available feeders such as crickets, calcium is lacking and therefore must be supplemented, an easy task as feeders can be dusted with calcium and the animal cannot overdose so plenty can be given to ensure a sufficient amount.
However, all the calcium in the world is ineffective unless the animal has vitamin d3 with which to process the calcium. In the wild this is obtained from sunlight. In captivity the caged animal is deprived of natural sunlight so two methods exist to supply the required d3, one is oral supplementation, the other is provision of UVB from artificial lighting. 
 The problem with oral supplementation is threefold. Firstly, we don't know what a correct dose is. Even if we did there is no way of administering the correct dose via dusting of feeders. Secondly, it is possible to overdose so therefore harm the animal we are trying to keep healthy. Finally, it has now been proven the the oral (and unnatural) administering of d3 is far less efficient than originally thought. The consequence of all this is that it's impossible to give a frog the correct dose of d3 orally. 
 UVB lighting has become by far the preferred way to provide d3 to frogs worldwide in zoos, institutions, breeding facilities and by hobbyists worldwide. The reason being is that it is the natural way in which the process occurs in the wild, it is far more efficient than oral supplementation and (as now has been proven), frogs can detect UVB through their eyes and so can regulate the amount of UVB they are exposed to. This means the correct amount can be obtained without overdose exactly as the frog would in the wild by varying their exposure to sunlight. 
 Of the two methods it is clear, and scientifically proven, than UVB lighting is preferable to oral supplementation for the provision of vitamin d3. Added to this is the huge weight of anecdotal evidence showing the other benefits to animals that have provided with UVB lighting including colouration, display of natural activity, breeding success and overall health. We do also see a lot of threads on here with often young frogs suffering from a variety of undiagnosed health issues, there is a very good chance that many of these have been been cause by preventable deficiencies of calcium/d3.
 There are now many scientific papers available to help people decide on the UVB/d3 issue, I don't have time to trawl for them all but obviously people can do their own research. Here's a small selection:

This one is particularly interesting as it shows that frogs provided with oral d3 still developed MBD showing it's inefficiency:

http://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/Husb...quirements.pdf

This one shows oral supplementation as ineffective compared to UVB in an animal that is very resistant to UVB:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20206712

This one demonstrates that frogs are able to detect UVB (as well as the inefficiencies of oral supplementation)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20206712

This is a good read too:

http://www.jzar.org/jzar/article/view/70/38


 With all the obvious proven and anecdotal reasons to provide UVB along with adequate cover for frogs it's difficult to understand why it should not be a standard part of modern husbandry, there seems no good reason to withhold it. The reasons given on the previous thread of decreased ventilation or inadequate plant growth are of course not reasons at all with the availability of compact bulbs, t5 and t8 tubes and even miniature fans. When you know you can improve the well-being of your charges by providing UVB even on a 'just in case' basis, is it really not worth providing just for the cost of a bulb?

----------

elly, sezzakin

----------


## Diver

Here's a little more reading from a forum in the UK. Only just found this thread, but I think it's hugely indicative of the different husbandry techniques over here:

Written in 2009.

We're on the cusp of a change. 
It seems that at least here hobbyists have begun to open up to the idea that Amphibians could indeed utilise UVB and that they may infact benefit from exposure to it.
This is going to be a rambling exploration 

First things first.
Amphibians like all vertebrates require Calcium in their bodies in sufficient amounts to be able to function optimally and thrive. Calcium is needed for not only bone density but also functions within the muscles, blood, nervous system, organs and exchanges on a cellular level.
*Lack of Calcium is much more than just softer bones. 
- The efficiency of nerves and the nervous system is compromised as the body tries to ration out the Calcium it does have (Hence twitching toes/legs or spasms). 
- The ability for muscles to be controlled is damaged, (prolapses can be a direct result as the cloacal sphincter muscles cannot be maintained).
- Hormonal regulation and/or homeostasis may be impaired, the animal may lose it's ability to maintain it's bodily balance or fail to breed despite appearing in good health outwardly as a deficiency renders it infertile or unable to respond to breeding cues. If the animal is able to breed it's offspring may be damaged from conception as a result of health problems in the adult animals.
- Then the bones themselves, you'd be suprised to know how many fractures an otherwise normal looking and mobile amphibian can have. This may leave the animal in constant pain, or it may impair their ability to feed and breed in such a minor way that it is never questioned or suspected.


Often the major argument amongst hobbyists to evidence "Good health" is that animals have bred...
Unfortunately for many species of animals (and indeed plants) reproduction may often be the last ditch effort to ensure genes are passed on despite the health of the animal being dire and the living conditions almost unbearable. 
If you could not get these animals to breed in captivity where competition is minimal, parasitism is reduced, predation is non-existant and food is abundant, THEN you'd really have something to worry about!
Breeding in captivity is not an indication of health nor 'happiness' in our animals. Sorry!


Amphibians, like all vertebrates, require Vitamin D3 in their bodies in order to utilise dietary Calcium, I won't go into the D3 pathway and specifically how it is used by the body to regulate calcium uptake, you can read about that here;
UV Lighting for Reptiles: Vitamin D synthesis in Ultraviolet Light

So, knowing this we are faced with two options which are the crux of this issue. Outlining them I hope to make it clear why UVB exposure is the safest, most logical and feasible option.


Dietary supplements.
Vitamin D3 can be absorbed by the body via the gut, however, this route of uptake is unregulated and allows for overdose and the resulting bodily imbalance.
The majority of amphibian keepers currently rely on multivitamin supplements to fulfill this role (although there are some who genuinely don't think it is needed for these animals!?!? and those who never use supplements).
Supplements come in little plastic pots that most people keep near their vivaria or in the cupboards below, people buy in bulk to save money so may have tubs stored at room temperature and above for 6-12 or more months... Vitamins are the entire purpose of our use of multivitamins instead of plain calcium (which as a pure mineral does not degrade or denature in a pot).
So then, we have a clear problem if we know that vitamins such as D3 are incredible fragile compounds, degraded or denatured by moisture, higher temperatures and exposure to atmospheric air. A tub of Nutrobal will be next to pointless after 6 months sat next to your viv and after 6 months worth of opening and closing, letting in moist atmospheric air...
So on one hand this method has the potential for overdose but also the potential to be completely pointless if the product is not stored and used appropriately, but, there is no way of the average hobbyist knowing when or how fast this occurs...


UVB exposure
The joy of opting for UVB exposure rather than plain supplements is that not only can you actually buy a meter to measure the exact level you are using and actively check for degradation of your chosen D3 provider, BUT this pathway is self limited within the skin of the animal!!!

Any Herptile in our care, amphibian or not, should be provided with a suitable environment in captivity this should include appropriate refugia - burrows/hiding spots, shade, foliage, caves, whatever. It should also include a full day/night cycle, the overall health of captive animals, their ability to breed and their hormonal balance is affected by their ability to experience Circadian Rhythms. (ALL animals whether nocturnal, diurnal or crepuscular). We should strive to provide a naturalistic light cycle including beneficial UVB (and UVA) exposure and we should design our vivaria to accomodate this.

Many reluctant keepers use the argument of;
"But they're nocturnal they would never be exposed to it!?!"
Go to the wild and see it for yourself  These animals sleep in the relative open even if they are truly nocturnal, your average treefrog sleeps on leaves or treetrunks exposed directly or indirectly (via reflection) to UVB.

I can tell you that amphibians, like lizards for instance, can be more or less demanding in terms of UVB. Some species can be exposed to massive levels of UVB on a daily basis and still show room for improvement in their calcium levels (e.g: Canopy dwelling treefrog species), others can be exposed to short blasts of high UVB exposure once in a blue moon and have good calcium levels (e.g: Arid environment burrowing sps.)
There is clearly a difference in tolerance to UVB exposure (meaning their skin may have greater resistance) and actual physical levels needed (meaning they may require a much greater overall exposure than other species to achieve the same level of "health") between individual species.


Common sense must apply, vivariums may be constructed to provide naturalistic levels of exposure and cover as per the individual species.
There is no single answer and there never will be.

Just consider this, I have seen animals with no visible skeleton jumping around like there is no tomorrow and breeding. This does not mean that it is acceptable for these animals to subsist, to live under sub-lethal stresses and we will know about it eventually...
The amphibian hobby does not seem as negative towards WC animals as others, I can think of no species which has yet been bred consistently for a number of generations with no injection of WC genes at some point. 
I can tell you that damage to offspring can be seen in the shorterm resulting directly from poorly kept adult stock, but no one is looking for it.

Poor success in metamorphs is blamed on bad water or bad luck. 
1000 Amazonian milk frog eggs can be whittled down to 5 successful metamorphs a year later and people say "oh well that's why they lay so many"... No. They lay so many to get through metamorphosis AND have some survive predation. Juveniles are passed along so people don't get to see where they begin to fail to thrive, or breed.

Frogs that look perfectly healthy can be walking around with a shattered pelvis (I've seen it...) and amplexing females nightly as they are healthy breeding animals!


*

----------

Cliygh and Mia 2, elly, sezzakin

----------


## Diver

And here's where the full thread and discussion can be found:

http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forum...y-musings.html

----------


## elly

Very interesting, thanks. I will ask, does anyone know if tree frogs are subject to burns from UVB?

----------


## Diver

If you denied the animal the ability to take cover when it wishes it might not do it a lot of good, but that would entail a bare box which I hope nobody would do! Contrary to the myth that 'tree frogs don't require UVB because they are nocturnal', in truth they actually receive more than many diurnal animals due to the fact that they choose to sleep directly exposed. Here are some examples from my collection taken today:

----------

Cliygh and Mia 2, elly

----------


## elly

Nice frogs!

----------


## Diver

Thanks Elly! The first frog is the Waxy Monkey Frog (Phyllomedusa sauvagii), a nocturnal species well known for basking all day in the hot sun. I actually emailed John Courteney-Smith from Arcadia in the UK (a man who does a huge amount of research on the subject of UVB!) to ask him his opinion on the correct light to provide to simulate what this species receives in the wild. He has kindly allowed me to share his very detailed response below. The figures concerned are of course specific to this frog, but the methods used are appropriate to all species denied natural sunlight in captivity and of course reinforces the need to provide UVB to our captive frogs. This is to be published formally later this year:

Hi, A great question and one that has a rather simplistic answer but requires some study and implementation to really get things right.

Basically as with every aspect of exotic animal care we have to look to the actual evolved (core) needs of a species, per species and subspecies! We need to look intricately at the needs and actions of the species including the actual everyday patterns of behaviour per season. 

We have to look to the wild environment, the average weather patterns and seasonal cycles and of course the average solar index of the given locality per season and over as long a period of time as records allow. this is research gold to the exotic animal keeper.

We look at rainfall, the quantity and longevity of the rainy season or seasons, we look at wind factor and the given elevation above sea level per species(the higher a species is found the higher the available index will potentially be). We look the wild diet and method of water ingestion whether it is lapped directly from pools or if it is obtained from rain rivulets running down a tree or from capillary action collected across the body or even from the simple opening of the mouth in the rain. We should also factor in the 'nutritional content' of wild water, it is far from 'pure'! No it will contain Ca and many other minerals. This can and does play an active roll in nutritional provision.

In short we look at every aspect of the habits and environment of the wild species or subspecies and make good notes. From these we will see just how the seasons can effect a species. In the case of P sauvagii we can see a direct link between the changing of the seasons of the rather harsh environments in which they live and their resting and breeding cycles.

We can see that they obtain a vast solar index in the wild and can see how they have adapted to life in this rather hot, quite dry and windy place by evolving a level of protection against and a subsequent use for the sun. This of course comes from the waxy secretion that is wiped over the body. This does not just stop the frog from drying out as was once thought but it also acts a functioning sunblock, however this important evolutionary change is not an indication to the species lack of solar requirement! No, rather this clever adaption has in a similar way to the thick skins of arid lizard species allowed the frog to take what it needs from the sun in the safest method possible. It really is a case of 'six and two threes'. Either you have a thin skin and develop a crepuscular tendency and pop out and energise quickly or you have a thick skin and spend a much longer period of time in the sun or in the case of this group, you develop the ability to use 'sunscreen'. The biological changes after exposure are still largely the same, these are just differing ways of obtaining the required dose of energy. Remember, just because an animal is found asleep by day does not mean that it has evolved to live in the dark! No just as humans burn when asleep in the sun the core biological processes still play out in terms of UVB to D3. You do not have to be awake to benefit in full from the energy of the sun.

So how do we implement this knowledge into our at home enclosures? Well it really is very simple indeed. We use the knowledge that we have of the wild animal proactively. This is always our 'base' point. This is the place where we can start to build our tech around the animal in ITS enclosure as this is of course the actual evolved and as such actual 'need' of the species. For instance, if a species has evolved to thrive in full exposure under a solar index of 7-8 for 10 months of the year and at a thermal daily peak of say 34-36 and obtain hydration via mist and capillary action then this is its biological need. No matter what we do as keepers this will always be their biological need and we must provide for it.

So if we supplied that species with an index of 2-3 for 6 hours a day and ran the viv at 30 and left a bowl of water on the floor for it to drink from we could not possibly be catering for its wild evolved biological needs. The animal would be in a real sense 'under run' or under provided for. This is where nutritional disease starts its long and chronic progression, whether this disease manifests from a lack of minerals and as such poor organ and bone health or a lack of water soluble vitamins or even poor organ function from the lack of hydration. The clues to great captive care really are hidden in the wild.

Reversely this wild need will show the upper limits of the species evolved solar protection method. As such if we know a species basks at an index of 5 and we provide 15 we will be over providing for the species, pushing through the animals solar protection and we will risk just as with humans skin cancers and other biological problems. By over providing we do nothing other than put the animal at risk.


In the case of this highly evolved frog we already know that they like it hot and dry for most of the year and have a regimented breeding cycle that is weather specific. We can see that they are opportunistic feeders and will take food of many differing forms, all adding into their core nutritional provision over their lifespan (we should seek to mimic this also). We can see that temps are rather prone to change in the wild but lets take an average of 28 degrees as a generally safe basking temp. This can of course be increased just before cycling right up to 34-36 depending on the locality of the frog to be kept. We can see that UV Indexes for most of the year are shown as 'extreme' that means 9-11. However we should not seek to irradiate the poor thing to this level in the confines of captivity. This is where a very fine line is drawn.

If 9-11 is the wild need then surely we should provide 9-11 in captivity? Well the answer is of course in a sense yes and no. A frog in the wild has a vast space to move around and to find areas of strong sunshine and of course reversely to find good gradients into shade. We must also remember that light and as such UV is not simply on or off, no, it has billions of gradients in-between, each one usable in an intricate way by the animal. Light reflects off of everything so solar energy is made available in a myriad of graduations and angles. UV bouncing up from a wet leaf or light stone and hitting the flanks and undersides of a species is just as important and active as the light that hits it back! 

What about the frogs waxy secretion does this indicate that the frog is protecting itself against the sun and therefore has no use for it? To this we have to say an emphatic no. The level of protection against the sun is there so that the animal can bask safely and still be able to obtain essential solar energy and all of the biological processes that this causes. If we underprovide for this index the level of energy will not be able to penetrate through the secretion and go on to have the positive interaction that the frog has evolved to utilise. This is exactly the same for the green igg or the bearded dragon or any other solar reliant species. In the case of the green iguana of course they have evolved a need for and a level of protection against the sun via the thick almost armour like skin. If the evolved total index is not provided for correctly we cannot push through this level of protection and there will be a potential shortfall in UVB exposure to D3 production (D3 cycle). 

Ok, so we take an average, unless you have a room sized enclosure for your frogs it will always be hard to provide a safe graduation from the vast wild power into cool and shade, as such we use an average and try our best to cause this usable sense of the wild in the enclosure size that we have. As we know UVB is a weak wavelength that decreases in power as light travels forward. It is also impeded by plastics, glass and of course reduced in potency or index by a mesh. So we have to decide upon a basking index, match that with a basking area in the viv and then choose a lamp that will provide for that index at that basking area or in your case 'perch'.


This of course has to be measurable. So we use a solarmeter 6.5 to check the actual index and monitor this over the year. Lets say that due to the level of protection against and the requirement for a specific index and coupled with daily activity patterns and or course foliage cover etc that we should seek to provide an upper index basking zone of 5-6. That sounds about right to me. You would therefore choose a lamp that projects that index towards your basking area and then light the area of projection accordingly by using broadleaf live plants and branches. We choose a lamp or lamps that are shorter than the viv and as such create 'light and shade' in which the frog can accurately self regulate. Then we sit back and watch. If the frog is constantly hiding after the settling in period and skulking about in the shadows then the index could be too high for its needs, reversely if it is sitting up as high as it can right under the lamp, then move the perch up half an inch at a time until it stops reaching forward but never exceed the 'safe' index, lets say 8.

As with all of these things it is never a single simple answer that suits all, we can have a rough guess as to what is needed but we need tools to take measurements to become accurate with regard to provision.

In most cases a stat controlled halogen heat source fitted alongside a D3 linear or UVFLOOD is indeed required to provide the wild re-created index. Jungle Dawn can be used alongside this lamp to increase further visible light, increase the CRI an of course cause live plants to flourish. 

Then of course you can manipulate heat, light and lighting periods to cause the seasonal changes that are required for breeding. Certainly with this group if you are lucky enough to have your breeding plans coincide with a local drop in barometric pressure and a storm it would be a great aid to the rain chamber!

John Courteney-Smith, Arcadia Reptile

----------

elly, sezzakin

----------


## elly

Interesting letter. But is there a possibility that the frogs don't necessarily know what they need, UVB-wise? For instance the chance that they might be basking in the light simply because it's warm?

In the case of White's, who have a very broad range and greys who may be a little active in the day, but it's hard to say how much, I'd have to guess that both these frogs have UVB requirements below to far below Waxies.

----------


## Diver

It would seem that as it's been proven that frogs can detect UVB through their eyes, that mechanism has evolved in order that they are able to regulate their exposure. This can be clearly seen in the behaviour of captive animals for example in my own collection where the heat is pretty much uniform (the room itself is temperature controlled).

----------

elly, Krispy

----------


## Amy

Waxy monkeys are not the greatest example to use unless dealing specifically with waxy monkeys, particularly for the reasons you've already listed into your post (the fact that they make their own sunscreen, different than any other species of amphibia.)

Here is some reading material you should probably take into consideration - 

Species: Common Toad (Bufo bufo)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortality and reduces larval survivalReferences: Lizana and Pedraza (1998); Häkkinen et al. (2001)

Species: Western Toad (Bufo boreas)
Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortality, causes developmental abnormalities and hampers antipredator behaviorSynergism: Exposure to high levels of UV-B increases susceptibility of embryos to infection by a parasitic fungus Saprolignia ferixReferences: Worrest and Kimeldorf (1976); Blaustein et al. (1994); Kats et al. (2000); Kiesecker and Blaustein (1995); Kiesecker et al. (2001

Species: Peron's Tree Frog (Litoria peronii)Effects of UV-B: Adult and larval frogs show behavioral avoidance of high levels of UV-BReferences: van de Mortel and Buttemer (1998)

Species: Verreaux's Tree Frog (Litoria verreauxii)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortalityReferences: Broomhall et al. (2000)

Species: Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B causes developmental and physiological abnormalities and reduces larval survivalSynergism: Exposure to UV-B in combination with high levels of nitrates reduces larval survivalReferences:Hays et al. (1996); Ovaska et al. (1997); Hatch and Blaustein 2003

Species: Moor Frog (Rana arvalis)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortalityReferences: Häkkinen et al. (2001)

Species: Common Froglet (Crinia signifera)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortalityReferences: Broomhall et al. (2000)

Species: California treefrog (Hyla cadaverina)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortalityReferences: Anzalone et al. (1998)

Gray Treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B causes embryonic deformitiesReferences: Starnes et al. (2000)

Species: Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea)Effects of UV-B: Adult and larval frogs show behavioral avoidance of high levels of UV-BReferences: van de Mortel and Buttemer (1998)



*None of these studies have been contested and have not been reviewed, therefore cannot be considered outdated.

*http://arcadia-reptile.com/jungle-dawn-led/ - Being a Brit, you should know this company well.  They have put a lot of research into the best lighting for vivariums and the animals they contain.  A quote from their page - 


> The Arcadia Jungle Dawn is perfect for use in or over all Amphibian setups and especially those in which live plants are grown. It can also be used with day geckos, crested geckos, chameleons, snakes and all other reptiles and amphibians where a high quality non UV emitting light is required.


I received this information from a batrachologist that I had  and hoping he will come on at some point to discuss this some more.

Either way, I have seen some troubling suggestions that supplements are bad, and this is *NOT TRUE. * Supplements are absolutely necessary when dealing with captive animals.  There is no way (even with UVB lighting) that we can replicate their wild diet without the addition of supplements.   

If you want to discuss anecdotal evidence as you've been regularly posting, which is pretty much worthless, then I can easily tell you that I have NEVER seen a case of MBD in frogs caused by deprivation of UVB.  However, I have seen many cases, on multiple forums and facebook groups, of people asking for help with their MBD frogs as a result of deprivation of supplements.  In some cases, UV LIGHTING WAS PROVIDED.

----------

Krispy

----------


## Diver

I think you may be struggling with understanding much of the above information, can I suggest you go back over it and if you have any specific questions I'll do my best to help.

To address your concerns above, I do recall reading most of those studies from 15+ years ago, they were testing the effects of subjecting amphibians to EXCESSIVE UVB to gauge the effects, much like the study I posted from the Manchester museum. I would not advocate subjecting frogs to excessive UVB exposure from which they cannot escape. The point is to try and recreate the UVB exposure of the wild with places to take cover and therefore self regulate. I think that's very clearly stated.

I am aware of the company Arcadia, yes. You may have missed who the correspondence outlining the method for determining the correct UVB exposure was from   :Smile: 

You seem confused about supplements and their purpose. The ONLY supplement that has at any time been called into question is the ORAL SUPPLEMENT OF VITAMIN D3 as an artificial replacement for the natural production of D3 via UVB. No other supplementation has been called into question, in fact calcium for instance is a hugely important supplement as it is lacking in the common feeder provided. I'm not sure how you missed that, again it's deliberately very clear and is in fact the very substance of the discussion.

 I think again your last comment is because you're not understanding about supplements. If one provides UVB but does NOT provide calcium, then yes MBD will develop. Calcium should always be given, it is vitamin D3 that is necessary for the calcium to be utilised by the animal. The thread's purpose is to show that it has been scientifically proven that UVB (and hence the animal's own production of D3) rather than oral D3 supplements is the correct method.

Hope that helps   :Wink:

----------

sezzakin

----------


## Diver

> http://arcadia-reptile.com/jungle-dawn-led/ - Being a Brit, you should know this company well.  They have put a lot of research into the best lighting for vivariums and the animals they contain.  A quote from their page - 
> 
> I received this information from a batrachologist that I had  and hoping he will come on at some point to discuss this some more.


I just realised that your misunderstanding of the product description for Arcadia Jungle Dawn led lights may lead others to believe that Arcadia, a company as you rightly say have 'put a lot of research into the best lighting for vivariums and the animals they contain' DON'T recommend UVB lighting for 'day geckos, crested geckos, chameleons, snakes and all other reptiles and amphibians'. I can assure you that in this you are ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Jungle Dawns are an excellent full spectrum light source that is used in conjunction with UVB. On Arcadia's website, they have a number of well researched and described recommendations for lighting for a good number of species, all including UVB:

American Green Tree Frog.

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...green-frog.jpg

Horned Frog

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...orned-frog.jpg

Fire Bellied Toad

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...belly-toad.jpg

Leucomelas Dart Frog

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...-dart-frog.jpg

Day Geckos

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...-day-gecko.jpg

Crested Gecko

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...sted-gecko.jpg

Yemen Chameleon

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...-chameleon.jpg

Corn snake

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...corn-snake.jpg


There are many, many more and are a really useful resource. 

 I'm trying to explain the subject matter in as simple terms as possible but I'm concerned that you don't seem to be able to grasp the information. It's probably my fault, but I'm not sure how I can explain things more simply? As I said, if there's any part you're still not understanding, feel free to ask any specific questions.

----------


## bill

So, i read and re-read each article you linked to, and yes, i understood them fully. Not one of the studies or articles you posted state that UVB lighting is a REQUIREMENT for amphibians. i won't debate whether or not it 'could' be beneficial, because i do believe SOME species could benefit from it, but not ALL, as you seem to state. I am also bearing in mind that, with the exception of the studies on Agalychnis callidryas and Leptodactylus fallax, everything else you posted was purely anecdotal, and these 2 studies weren't very conclusive. This, I found surprising, since you claim an abundance of scientific information proving that it is a requirement. And yes, i did noticed that you accepted anecdotal evidence in one of yours posts. You continually push this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20206712 which is on Bearded dragons. While their biology MAY be similar, this discussion is about amphibians. I could post literally thousands of articles on the requirement of UV lighting in humans, but it's not quite the same now is it? The first post you linked to, referring to MBD, Jeff posted information from Dr. Ivan Alfonso, also about bearded dragons. Lastly, you quoted an email from John Courteney-Smith from Arcadia. While Mr. Courteney-Smith is a brilliant person, I do question whether or not there is a conflict of interest there, since he does have quite substantial investment in UV lighting that he does need to recoup. I'm sure you can understand my doubt referring to his email.

All that being said, nobody is saying that UVB is worthless and should just be outright denied, we just don't tell people it is MANDATORY to give ALL AMPHIBIANS UVB lighting. In this day and age, and in the current economies, people are trying to live and enjoy life with their froggy friends on what limited budgets they have. The addition of an extra lighting fixture,bulb replacement once to twice annually (some UVB bulbs can be quite costly), and the added power consumption can drive a potential new frogger away from the hobby before they even begin. And I find that just sad. 

We have a saying here in the U.S. 'there's more than one way to skin a cat'. Gruesome, I know, but it is a saying that I live by, whether it be in the frogging hobby, my fish, my plants, whatever. It just means that there is always more than one way to do things. I preach that constantly. The reason I bring this up is this; you say that with all the scientific and anecdotal evidence showing the benefits of UVB, why don't we as a hobby make it mandatory? Here's your answer: because there is just as much, if not more, that today's high quality supplements (Repashy calcium plus, dedrocare line) work just as well. You mention that Mr. Courteney-Smith has done extensive research on the effects of UVB, do you not believe that the companies producing high quality supplements do not as well? It's not some redneck living in a mobile home somewhere, just tossing powders into cups. Thousands upon thousands of keepers worldwide use oral supplements without any issue whatsoever. I personally, have a hard time understanding why you totally discount that much anecdotal evidence. But, as I said, there's more than one way to skin a cat. You have your way, others have theirs. Neither is 100% wrong, neither is 100% correct. 

The other reason some of us do not push UVB as a requirement is that so often, UVB is misused. I can preach until I turn blue that you should put UVB over a tank, however, unless I actually put it above a tank, there's no guarantee that it will not go over a tank that has plexiglass or lexan covering the top to help with humidity, or high iron content glass. I can preach about burn in times, but so few actually do it. So here is a scenario for you: Mrs. Jones just bought a pair of red eye tree frogs. She went all out. Huge tank, live plants, UVB, and calcium only supplements, as per someone's recommendation. Two months later, Mr. Jones loses his job. Money is tight. Unemployment just isn't cutting it. Luckily, Mrs. Jones has been raising crickets for her frogs, so the staple food is not an issue, but a week ago, the uv bulb burned out on the enclosure. The Jones don't have the money to replace it. Now that the frogs are only getting calcium, they are lacking D3 supplementation. Who suffers? The frogs. I apologize that this got to rambling, I tend to do that sometimes lol. The point is, Mrs. Jones was 'only doing what she was told'. At least that is her comment when she comes on the forum to ask why her frogs were so healthy just a few weeks ago, and now they have no energy. She never even mentions the fact that light burnt out, because she doesn't truly understand why she has it in the first place. She answers yes to 'do you supplement when you feed', because she is, but neglects to mention calcium only. I know, a slightly over dramatic example, but I think you can see my point here. And believe me, this does, and HAS happened. Just another reason why, when asked, I tell someone it's not a mandatory piece of equipment, provided you dust with calcium/d3. 


Basically, my whole point to this post was:

There's more than one way to skin a cat. I think maybe both sides of the debate should remember that.  :Smile:

----------

jasonm96

----------


## Jason

The whole UVB thing with frogs is just another stress to the hobbyist, so much conflicting information takes the fun out of enjoying animals as you're more concerned on the set up rather than the frog itself. Many people come out with broad statements that seem more a personal opinion rather than fact. I don't think there's been enough evidence to actually support that frogs actually need it but there's evidence that they've been kept and raised without for ages and just provided the correct dietary supplementation instead. I encourage more research be done but IMO it's too early to say that all need it, if they did then there would be more sources to say that they did.

----------


## bill

I couldn't agree more, in the sense that more research needs to be done. I don't even doubt that for some species, it could be quite beneficial, however, not completely necessary. But I also think that there are some that just absolutely don't need it. I think there needs to be more research into the amount of UV species get in the wild as well. I believe there is current research going on about that in certain areas of Madagascar.

----------


## Diver

Thanks guys, good to some input into the thread.   :Smile:   It's a difficult subject and the scientific studies are limited. There is never going to be funding to produce a scientific study pertaining to the UVB requirements of every species in the hobby sadly so we have to work with what is available. When a study shows that dietary supplement of D3 is inefficient and that UVB is not it is reasonable to take that as sound for the reasons stated rather than right it off because it isn't the exact animal you're dealing with. The mechanisms within the body are the same.

I think it's time to simplify things. The purpose of this thread is to discuss a very important part of correctly caring for captive animals and was prompted by seeing people new to the hobby asking about UVB and being given the answer that 'UVB isn't needed for frogs as we supplement with calcium' Apart from being incorrect, this advice disregards one of the most important biological requirements for captive animals that does need to be provided, (Vitamin D3) in order to avoid calcium deficiency.

So, can we all agree that D3 needs to be provided as without it calcium isn't utilised in the body? Or is the provision of D3 at all in question?

If we can agree, then we know that there are two ways to provide D3 in captivity. I promote UVB as it is the way that the animal has evolved to 'manufacture' D3 within it's own body in the wild and also offer many other benefits to the captive animal. With UVB the production of D3 is 'self-regulated' by the animal to produce the correct amount. It does need to be used correctly (placement, intensity and adequate cover all need to be addressed) and it does cost (although 20 bucks once a year shouldn't be beyond reach of anyone keeping animals, if it is that person shouldn't be keeping them).

The alternative method is oral D3 supplementation. I don't like this method because it has been shown to be inefficient, impossible to dose correctly and when overdosed (which is easy enough to do as it can't be dosed correctly) can slowly kill the animal through hypervitaminosis d and does not offer any of the other observed benefits of natural sunlight exposure.

I think at the very least new keepers asking the question should be told about the two alternative ways of providing D3.

For those who prefer to supplement instead of using UVB, could you explain how you work out the dosing for each of your species and how you administer that dose?

----------


## acpart

I don't have any scientific studies to back me up and am not making any statements about what I think other people should do, but I can recount what I've decided to do and why, so it can possibly help other people in their decision process. I've actually put this info on some other threads, but thought I'd put it here as well.  I'm primarily a gecko keeper and that includes mostly nocturnal geckos but also two day geckos.  The nocturnal geckos are all maintained on calcium and D3 (Repashy calcium plus).  They are fed 3 times a week and their feeders are dusted every other feeding.  The day geckos are also maintained on calcium and D3 without UVB as per the practice of Leann and Greg Christenson (based on their book "Day Geckos in Captivity").  The day geckos are 8 and 9 years old and doing well.  The only reptiles I have that are being provided with UVB lighting (bulbs changed every 6 months) are my two bearded dragons who are diurnal and fairly large. They get some D3 with dusted feeders twice a week.
Until recently, I was keeping my trio of RETF on calcium and D3 alone, dusting their crickets every other feeding.  I've had them for 6 months and they seem to be doing OK. This past week I added a 13 watt UVB compact florescent to the frog enclosure which I plan to replace every month. I also have a LED light for the plants.  I decided to do this for several reasons:
--the frogs sleep often in the open.  My nocturnal geckos mostly sleep inside their hides and wouldn't benefit from UVB during the day
--the day geckos eat fruit nectar in addition to the crickets.  The nectar is formulated with calcium and D3 and is considered a complete meal for them
--I have no idea how long it takes the frogs to eat the crickets.  I've never seen any of my frogs actually eat a cricket, but the frogs appear healthy, there is plenty of frog poop and there aren't too many crickets in there.  It may be that the crickets groom the supplement off themselves before the frogs can eat them.  That was probably the deciding factor to my adding the UVB light.

I have no idea how this will all work out; these are my first frogs.  So far, things have gone OK.  I'm grateful.

Aliza

----------


## Diver

That's excellent Aliza. I really hope we can keep this thread positive and open minded , too may times you come across discussions which ought to be like-minded people sharing information descend into arguments. I think egos can get bruised and this causes some people to dig their heels in to the point where they'll never alter their position for fear of appearing to 'lose an argument'.

Times change in the hobby, we learn more and more equipment becomes available the combination of which enables us to more and more closely replicate the conditions in which our exotic pets live in the wild. Some people have stated that researching and keeping up to date with the latest information is stressful and takes away from the enjoyment. For me it is the opposite, I think creating a mini version of the rainforest or wherever else to help my animals flourish and thrive IS the hobby, watching an animal suffer or become sick or live a less than perfect life because I didn't do absolutely everything in my power to provide the best possible care is what I would find stressful. These creatures live in an enclosure 100% dependent upon us after all.

To give an personal example of how quickly the hobby moves on, back in 1981 I published an article in 'The Herptile' pertaining to the maintenance of Cordylus giganteus in captivity. While at the time it was not incorrect, if you were to put it forward as a care sheet these days you would be laughed out of the room. The reason? Our knowledge and equipment has moved on vastly. Bear in mind back then the average lifespan of a chameleon (for instance) was considered 3 to 6 months and indeed I owned a Jackson's Chameleon in 1980 which did indeed only survive for 6 months. I'm sure you can guess the reason why! Today many species of chameleon are widely kept and bred in large numbers, back then captive breeding was unheard of.

So, we need to keep abreast of modern husbandry techniques and we need to share that information. With the internet all of this has become super easy. Recently I was looking for information about Phllomedusa sauvagii, I found a study in the wild online which had the GPS co-ordinates of where the study took place. From these co-ordinates I was able to find out the temperatures, UV index, humidity, rainfall and photoperiod of the area for every month of the year. This information combined with heaters, thermostats, UVB lighting, misters and timers means I recreate the conditions in the place where these animals have evolved to live in the wild. Amazing! You'd have killed for the ability to be able to do this in the late 70s/early 80s.

I haven't kept geckos for a number of years so I'm not up to date on their husbandry, I do note however from other forum discussions that UVB is mostly considered a necessity these days and a quick Google of modern care sheets seems to back that up. I can certainly understand how these ready-made foods make it much easier to provide correct doseage of nutrients (I'm assuming someone has worked out what dose they need?) so I can see how that might work well as in the thinking in 'Day Geckos in Captivity' from 2003. Of course (and anecdotally!) when I first started keeping we kept our animals with neither UVB OR D3 supplements and they fared well and bred too, but I don't think anyone would recommend that course of action these days. I wonder if you might find it interesting to use UVB with your day geckos at some point?

Lastly, before this gets too long and boring for people to bother to read  :Smile: , it might be a typo but I see you are planning on changing your UVB every month? Most manufacturers recommend annually, some six monthly. In practice, if you own a UVB meter, you actually find they tend to last a lot longer than either of these recommendations, but monthly is certainly not necessary.

----------


## Jason

Let me state I'm not against UVB lighting with frogs, I provide my tree frogs with a 5.0 but my horned frog and cane toad are on natural daylight lamps.

----------


## acpart

Yes, I should have said "every 6 months".  Even changing at that rate is much cheaper than the cost of a UVB meter, which I looked into.  Interestingly, I have been in recent touch with Leann who still feels that D3 supplementation for day geckos, as opposed to UVB is the way to go (not that she feels UVB is wrong, but she continues to be successful with her D3 methods). Alan Repashy states that he has done a fair amount of research into formulating his Calcium Plus (though I don't have access to his studies).  I will think about the day geckos, though.

Aliza

----------


## Jason

> Yes, I should have said "every 6 months".  Even changing at that rate is much cheaper than the cost of a UVB meter, which I looked into.  Interestingly, I have been in recent touch with Leann who still feels that D3 supplementation for day geckos, as opposed to UVB is the way to go (not that she feels UVB is wrong, but she continues to be successful with her D3 methods). Alan Repashy states that he has done a fair amount of research into formulating his Calcium Plus (though I don't have access to his studies).  I will think about the day geckos, though.
> 
> Aliza


'Day' kind of gives it away to me, UVB should be provided. Although d3 supplements can work UVB is better. The only reason I rely on D3 with some frogs is that my Horned frog set up is minimal, there's not much I can do work it compared to what you could do with a geckos, so it would be pinned under the UV, where as a geckos set up could be heavily planted with live plants so there's enough shade so it could self regulate

----------


## Monkey Business

Thank you for this info specifically about waxies. I am supplying via a UVB bulb about 3 hours per day and my guys do sleep at the top, just under it. I do not have a meter to get readings so I will do that.

 I keep and breed parrots and my husband is an avian vet, so we are able to check things like bone density at will. Many of the same things seem to apply, as these are also arboreal creatures of various habitats (rainforest, Savannah, etc.). Parrots easily overdose on D as do all creatures since it is a fat soluble vitamin and the excess is not excreted like vitamin C for instance. 

So the best results by far are obtained by giving calcium without D and exposing the birds to REAL sunlight at least one hour per week. Tons of studies on this that are not for this forum.

In an attempt to do the same, I take my frog enclosure outside into the sun (easy as it is a mesh cage) for about an hour once a week. Only once did I have a frog move from the top down to a leaf where he got partial exposure; I see that as an indication that they are indeed "aware" of the sun even when sleeping.

We have no way of knowing if commercial bulbs provide everything that the natural sun does so I feel this is a prudent strategy. 

(PS although I do not keep them, I would have to assume that even floor dwellers like dart frogs would encounter dappled sunlight and I don't think they should be completely deprived of that-purely an opinion)

----------

Diver, jasonm96

----------


## Jason

You're right about darts, I don't understand how people can say they get d3 in their diet, they do not as they're limited to insects, which don't contain d3. Dart frogs just don't need as much uvb as animals like beardies, they can probably absorb sufficient levels from scattered uv or a step in the sun for a short period of time. But there's so much research to be done, hopefully in a few years time we will have more information and proven results.

----------

Diver

----------


## Diver

Most frog keepers are catching on luckily Monkey Business, and as Jason said there's only one place they get D3 from in the wild and it isn't from diet. The days of over-reliance on supplements ought to be behind us, supplements are there to fill in the gaps of what we are not able to provide in the captive environment, not a beginning point and with the ready availability of UVB bulbs now we don't need to be relying purely on unnatural artificial dietary means.

I'm sure UVB bulbs aren't as good as natural sunlight, but they are a close second. I see from your location that you are lucky enough to have a ready supply of the real thing!

----------

jasonm96

----------


## Jason

I still provide low levels of d3 for all frogs receiving uvb just because it isn't the same as natural sunlight. It's an obvious one with dart frogs that they use uvb but when you look at species like horned frogs, african bull frogs, cane toads etc you probably do have to supplement moderate levels of d3 as they feed on vertebrates as well as inverts, so uvb itself might not be enough. There's always going to be a need for supplements as in captivity we rely mainly on crickets as a dietary source and other insects. Perhaps some do actually get all the d3 they need in their diet but smaller frogs like darts, mantellas, fire bellies, red eyed tree frogs for an example most likely use uv for their complete d3 needs.

----------


## Diver

Yep, I do too. Pretty much all of the multivitamin supplements around contain at least some D3 but I can't imagine the frogs getting enough to cause hypervitaminosis and the other vitamins are nice to have  :Wink:   I definitely wouldn't rely on supplements to get adequate amounts of any vitamin let alone D3 though, much better to concentrate on a varied, well gut loaded diet and UVB and use supplements as a safety net. The problem in some circles is that a culture of feeding (usually one) easy to obtain feeder insect and throwing powder at it has developed. To me, that's a bit like giving a human a multivitamin pill and nothing but cheese sandwiches. You wouldn't die, but your health wouldn't exactly be optimum either.

----------


## Jason

Me neither but we're never really going to be able to provide the varied wild diet of some animals though and so the vitamins compensate for that. Think of horned frogs, a big part of their diet is other frogs (including their own)... To feed them other frogs in captivity isn't feasible considering frogs go for more or less a tenner each. People feed fish and pink mice to compensate for the calcium they'd get from this but pink mice are fatty and fish can be diseased.

----------


## Herpvet

> Yep, I do too. Pretty much all of the multivitamin supplements around contain at least some D3 but I can't imagine the frogs getting enough to cause hypervitaminosis and the other vitamins are nice to have   I definitely wouldn't rely on supplements to get adequate amounts of any vitamin let alone D3 though, much better to concentrate on a varied, well gut loaded diet and UVB and use supplements as a safety net. The problem in some circles is that a culture of feeding (usually one) easy to obtain feeder insect and throwing powder at it has developed. To me, that's a bit like giving a human a multivitamin pill and nothing but cheese sandwiches. You wouldn't die, but your health wouldn't exactly be optimum either.


Whilst I agree with much of what you say, I would take issue with your comment that "you can't imagine the frogs getting enough [vitamins] to cause hypervitaminosis". Again data is lacking in amphibians (one report is cited in Wright & Whitaker - but how many amphibs routinely undergo post-mortem exam?), but it is not uncommon to see older (usually male) reptiles with blood vessel calcification; hypervitaminosis D is a real possibility. And when you consider supplements are typically "1 pinch per kg of animal" or similar, the difference of a few particles to a dart frog, say, could be a huge overdose. Vitamin supplements are not risk-free by any means. I do use, and recommend, supplementation in many cases (and of course deficiency issues are FAR more common) but care is definitely needed.

Unfortunately as has been mentioned, ideally we need studies including serial radiographs/bone density assessments, and blood sampling if feasible, to evaluate our captive animals, and crucially compare them to wild specimens (the studies that have been done in herps tend to suggest that even our "clinically healthy" animals are often not comparable in bone density and/or blood vitamin D3 levels to wild animals). While certainly not decrying the efforts and skills of keepers who have reared many species/generations of apparently healthy animals, unless all animals are examined for evidence of pathology, particularly post-mortem, then there will always be doubt.

----------

jasonm96

----------


## Diver

> Whilst I agree with much of what you say, I would take issue with your comment that "you can't imagine the frogs getting enough [vitamins] to cause hypervitaminosis". Again data is lacking in amphibians (one report is cited in Wright & Whitaker - but how many amphibs routinely undergo post-mortem exam?), but it is not uncommon to see older (usually male) reptiles with blood vessel calcification; hypervitaminosis D is a real possibility. And when you consider supplements are typically "1 pinch per kg of animal" or similar, the difference of a few particles to a dart frog, say, could be a huge overdose. Vitamin supplements are not risk-free by any means. I do use, and recommend, supplementation in many cases (and of course deficiency issues are FAR more common) but care is definitely needed.
> 
> Unfortunately as has been mentioned, ideally we need studies including serial radiographs/bone density assessments, and blood sampling if feasible, to evaluate our captive animals, and crucially compare them to wild specimens (the studies that have been done in herps tend to suggest that even our "clinically healthy" animals are often not comparable in bone density and/or blood vitamin D3 levels to wild animals). While certainly not decrying the efforts and skills of keepers who have reared many species/generations of apparently healthy animals, unless all animals are examined for evidence of pathology, particularly post-mortem, then there will always be doubt.


Thanks! Good info and nice to have a contribution from a professional. I was working under the assumption that a multivitamin with low levels of D3 being given in the inefficient 'dusting' method would be tricky to overdose, but of course as it isn't metabolised as such would this be the reason that it would be possible? An accumulative effect? Would it therefore, in your opinion, be better practise to only use supplements not containg D3 when UVB is provided?

----------


## Diver

I haven't updated this thread for a while, but now UVB provision is accepted as a standard part of good husbandry, here's some solid scientific research to help people figure out exactly how to provide it correctly.

----------

jasonm96

----------


## Jason

Thanks for sharing this is very helpful

but we should also remember not all amphibians are the same and their needs for UVB will differ. Large predatory frogs can get D3 from a diet that includes whole prey items like fish, mice, lizards or other frogs. There's just not enough evidence to support that all frogs need UVB, but they have been raised without for years and many have fared well. With such success, I highly doubt keepers or breeders will or should have to change their ways until more research on each species has been done. Most of the studies I have seen have been doing on small frogs that feed on insects (which naturally lack D3) or basking species. 

Yes, some develop MBD and they might not have had UVB, but was this the cause or inadequate supplementation and gutloading of insects, lack of variety or wrong temperatures?

----------


## Diver

It is their differing needs that are addressed in the attached paper. I would think that on the contrary that there is little to no evidence to suggest that any frogs DON'T need UVB. D3 oral supplementation was invented when people realised that keeping animals indoors away from natural sunlight was causing them harm and figured out that it was the d3 that sunlight was formerly providing that was missing. Back then, the only remedy was to expose the animals to natural sunlight or administer a synthetic. We no longer need the synthetic (which is known to be a poor way to address the problem) as we now have freely available technology to replicate the missing sunlight.
It is not only frogs of course, we know that all animals with very few exceptions process sunlight to produce vitamin d3, and that includes humans. We get the majority of our d3 that way despite a hugely varied diet. As far as larger amphibians are concerned (you'll notice Bufo marinus on the list), while they may be able to meet a certain amount of their requirement IF they find prey that contains it, they wouldn't meet it all that way and almost certainly none at all as juveniles when their diet would be almost entirely insect in nature.

----------


## Jason

To me, it just looks like a guide to what exposure per species would have in the wild and how to recreate that. But I'll read it fully later. Many believe that D3 should still be included even if UVB is used, but that's its cut down. Animals that get real sunlight might not need it at all

Rhinella marina I doubt feeds a lot on vertebrate prey, it's just very opportunistic. Now, horned frogs on the other hand do, especially C. Cornuta on other frogs. They can eat their other siblings even at the young age hence why many breeders raise them in incidual deli cups. It could meet all their needs? Many used to be raised on just fish and pink mice with no supplementation, but we do know now that this can cause other problems. There's plenty of evidence that they can do well without it.

Now, when we talk about let's say fire-bellied toads or red-eyed tree frogs, it is very obvious to me that they will use the suns rays for the vitamin D needs. Does this mean that they need it to do well in captivity? No. Would it be beneficial? Of course. But UVB is just as much guesswork. Realistically, a lot of hobbyist ain't going to pay £200 for a UV meter unless they have a large collection. UVB lamps are delicate, can be damaged or installed incorrectly. If you're using UVB, it's always better to go for a large tank, unless the species does sit indirect sunlight for hours on end (waxy monkey frogs, although this frog needs a large tank anyway) Too much or too less exposure can be bad, just as manmade D3 products. I am actually going to get one of these myself at one point. I do get the argument on UVB and I support that it could be beneficial to many species, but I not believe anyone who is keeping their frogs without UVB is providing bad husbandry... on the other hand, if the invidual species actually has been proven to benefit from exposure and it's easy enough to provide, then I would encourage the provision of UVB. But I wouldn't recommend cutting D3 from supplements.

----------


## Diver

> To me, it just looks like a guide to what exposure per species would have in the wild and how to recreate that. But I'll read it fully later. Many believe that D3 should still be included even if UVB is used, but that's its cut down. Animals that get real sunlight might not need it at all
> 
> *Exactly. A guide to the UVB present in the wild and how to recreate it is exactly what it is required when planning the best photo-gradient.*
> 
> Rhinella marina I doubt feeds a lot on vertebrate prey, it's just very opportunistic. Now, horned frogs on the other hand do, especially C. Cornuta on other frogs. They can eat their other siblings even at the young age hence why many breeders raise them in incidual deli cups. It could meet all their needs? Many used to be raised on just fish and pink mice with no supplementation, but we do know now that this can cause other problems. There's plenty of evidence that they can do well without it.
> 
> *All large frogs and toads are opportunistic predators and marinus definitely eats a large amount of vertebrate prey. It's a big problem for native wildlife in Australia. Highly doubtful that any could meet all d3 needs throughout life from diet alone. 'Doing well without it' could mean that everything seems fine, but the frogs bones are like rubber. They can survive surprisingly well with such deficiencies, but it's very poor husbandry to allow it to occur.*
> 
> Now, when we talk about let's say fire-bellied toads or red-eyed tree frogs, it is very obvious to me that they will use the suns rays for the vitamin D needs. Does this mean that they need it to do well in captivity? No. Would it be beneficial? Of course. But UVB is just as much guesswork. Realistically, a lot of hobbyist ain't going to pay £200 for a UV meter unless they have a large collection. UVB lamps are delicate, can be damaged or installed incorrectly. If you're using UVB, it's always better to go for a large tank, unless the species does sit indirect sunlight for hours on end (waxy monkey frogs, although this frog needs a large tank anyway) Too much or too less exposure can be bad, just as manmade D3 products. I am actually going to get one of these myself at one point. I do get the argument on UVB and I support that it could be beneficial to many species, but I not believe anyone who is keeping their frogs without UVB is providing bad husbandry... on the other hand, if the invidual species actually has been proven to benefit from exposure and it's easy enough to provide, then I would encourage the provision of UVB. But I wouldn't recommend cutting D3 from supplements.
> ...


You're obviously interested in the subject matter Jason, and to be honest I don't come on here very often any more as like most fora now this one is becoming quieter in favour of the many very active Facebook groups. Could I suggest you join us in the group 'Advanced Herp Husbandry'? You will have access to many of the world's leading scientists and herpetologists who are at the cutting edge of modern husbandry practices. I think you'd enjoy it   :Smile:

----------


## Jason

I'm very much interested in the care of my animals and love to read books on them.

I'm aware that D3 is regulated by the body when exposed to lights, but what I mean with too much UVB might be bad, as it is for us. 

If the frogs did not fare well with this then experts/breeders would recommend UVB lighting. These guys literally spend so much time with their frogs, studying them and trying new things. They breed them for a living and so I trust them the most. They would know if something was missing. I believe you breed too don't you? I'd trust what you do with your animals, the species you kept and would take advice. But I fully trust Philippe de Vosjoli's guide to horned frog care and his methods. Working closely with one species and lots of them is the best way to learn how to care for them. I do prefer practical advice rather than theory and UVB lighting with amphibians needs more research IMO and proven results per species, in detailed information on how they were housed, fed and what lighting and for how long they received it. But I'm re-doing my tanks over the next few months and I am putting better lighting on some where I believe will benefit and for displaying the frogs. I'll still use my supplements contain D3, though.

Those were not excuses, but actually concerns. In order to fully rely upon UVB as a the main source of D3 and leave behind the old supplementation regimes, the correct wild index as you know has to be provided. But there's guesswork unless you have the UVB meter and it's pricey. For the light and shade method, for me the tank size does come into consideration. Unlimited space in the wild allows the animal to select many light and heat gradients to it's preference. In small (but not necessarily tiny) tanks often recommended, the animals will not have much choices and could be stressed. This will have to be updated and hobbyists will need to buy larger tanks and create different types of set ups. Breeders aswell, it will be very different and pricier than the current practices. We have a serious interest in frogs, but for someone who simply wants a pet, it's a lot different. They might just want the basics and the animal, not to spend a fortune. Just my thoughts. I do like to have debates on these things,it's a great way to learn and share advice. There's so much to be learn.

I will check it out, thanks!

----------


## Diver

Yes, absolutely correct that sufficient shelter must be provided, if you kept a frog in a bare box it would no doubt be similar to putting a human in the middle of the desert with the resulting over-exposure. Animals self-regulate in the same way that we do, but of course must be given the opportunity to do so. 
 I take on board what you're saying about people who just want a 'pet', I think the issue I have is when (as I have seen on here many times) new keepers are told that this very basic way of keeping animals is the correct way. I believe everyone should be encouraged to keep animals to the absolute best of their abilities and we are very fortunate these days to have the equipment and the knowledge to be able to do so, it's the responsibility of the more experienced to guide the novice in the best direction (I feel). This does include larger enclosures than the 'norm' for sure, many recommended sizes have no hope of providing proper photo and temperature gradients let alone enough space for the animal.
 As far as the Horned Frog is concerned, I've never kept them so I can't argue against what you have heard from people who breed them (I put this in the Tree Frog section as it's my area of interest), but it's worth noting that in the snake side of the hobby, big breeders like Brian Barczyk have an enormous following and the keeping methods he recommends (keeping large constrictors in bare tiny tubs and drawers) are emulated by thousands but also abhorred by just as many people so opinions do vary!
 Papers like the attached along with easily accessible information on for instance the Arcadia website are thankfully becoming more common and are a resource to help people know how to provide UVB for their animals without the need for an expensive meter. For me (and I remember all the shortcomings of the pre-UVB era only too well) it's something to point people in the direction of as they strive to care for their charges in vastly improved manner from 'the old days'. Also, we shouldn't forget that benefits of simulating natural sunlight are not just limited to the d3 production, even most people who argue the synthetic oral method will grudgingly admit this.

----------


## Jason

This is exactly it. But new keepers to fully understand pet shops must be supplying the correct equipment and advice (many don't) or even if they do, a lot of people do just think it's the pet shop wanting to make money, unfortunately as a £10 frog can cost hundreds to properly set up. New books focused on the on the care of amphibians will be produced in the future and include how to properly use UVB. Yes the Arcadia books help, but an all in one solution focused solely on amphibians in better. The future looks good but it will take time and more studies and results from breeders will help

----------

stinax182

----------

