Clarification on recommended UVI

[regal81455]

I'm not trying to rock any boats or stir up tense conversations, just looking for some clarity. This is about Veileds and Panthers, don't know what is recommended for all the other various subspecies so disregard them in this thread please.

Why is it that everyone recommends a 3-4 UVI when in Ambilobe ( and across Madagascar ) UVI levels average around 13 at noon through out the year and get as high as 16.

And in Yemen it gets to 10+

Chart for reference...

https://nomadseason.com/uv-index/madagascar/diana/ambilobe.html

According to the Ferguson zone info I've looked at for UVI for zone 3 should be around 1.0 - 2.6 BUT your basking area should be 2.9-7.4.

So when people suggest UVI 3-4 at the basking zone are we suggesting that simply because that's what's considered safe or because it's what is best for our animal?

With chameleons that are climbing the roofs of their enclosures, are they doing this because they want out, they are cold, or they are not getting the UVI that would be seen in the wild? Maybe ( and probably ) a combo of all three??? It would seem to me the animal would move in and out of areas with high UVI as they need it in the wild and that we should be trying to do the same. We all know to boot that the levels we see in the enclosure drop off quick both vertically and laterally. The UVI levels indicated in the referenced chart are at ground level, not up in the trees so is it even higher where they are at?

Again just asking - not trying to ruffle feathers but in my logical, questioning mind things don't seem to line up for me and I'm trying to understand why the basking zone is suggested here that it needs to be 3-4 and where that comes from. I have to be missing something...

 

[regal81455]

Another thing to consider. In South FL, where wild chams are populating; the lowest UVI seen at ground level on average is around 4 in January and as hi as 12 in June. So again, something doesn't seem to add up to me.

 

[Beman]

So what has been found is when they are in their natural environment and the UVI hits highs like you mentioned the chameleons retreat into shady areas to get away from it. Prolonged high UVI exposure is something that could be linked with issues of cancer. You see this in humans that are constantly exposed to the sun. Now there is no money in testing this theory with chams so it has not been proven nor have tests been done to understand the max they could handle. But there have been many that have studied them in their natural environments and watched how their behaviors correlate with UVI and temps. I think this is the component you are missing. While certain areas may have high UVI of 10-16 it does not mean the chams are actually actively exposed and basking in this all day long. UVI during the day changes with the sun position. At peak you are going to see the highest UVI levels this also includes the hottest temps of the day.

Bill Strand has done quite a few podcasts on UVI you might check those out. So what leaders in the community have put out there for us to understand is this 3-6 UVI range of exposure. This also does not mean that a 2 UVI would not work as well. But then the lower in UVI the more risk of MBD so 2 tends to be the lowest of what is recommended in current husbandry. 3 UVI has become the universal number recommended since I got into the hobby over 5 years ago.

 

[nightanole]

Also chams generally only sun bath for 10-20min in the early morning and evening. And guess what those numbers are

 

[regal81455]

Thank you for replying. I'm not missing that component at all. I understand they won't spend their entire day in it or maybe not even at all but by 9a it's already a 5 so already higher than what is "recommended" and I've watched numerous videos online of them in their natural enviroment just hanging out in the mid-day sun. They may retreat but they do it at their own will.

Additionally, if the recommended basking zone per the FZ chart is 3-7, why do we keep suggesting 3-4. I'm not suggesting we raise the limits to the highs seen in Yemen and Madagascar but to me if we provide the max of 7, as indicated by the Ferguson zone chart, somewhere in the enclosure with the ability to escape it, they will find they're own sweet spot. I just don't understand where 3-4 has become the standard, it's not even what the chart suggests.

With all the above said, it seems this info was IMHO ok when we didn't have UV emitting bulbs that now can vary their levels ( ie Lumenize ) and probably need to start rethinking some of this.

 

[Texas Ranger]

Thank you for replying. I'm not missing that component at all. I understand they won't spend their entire day in it or maybe not even at all but by 9a it's already a 5 so already higher than what is "recommended" and I've watched numerous videos online of them in their natural enviroment just hanging out in the mid-day sun. They may retreat but they do it at their own will.

Additionally, if the recommended basking zone per the FZ chart is 3-7, why do we keep suggesting 3-4. I'm not suggesting we raise the limits to the highs seen in Yemen and Madagascar but to me if we provide the max of 7, as indicated by the Ferguson zone chart, somewhere in the enclosure with the ability to escape it, they will find they're own sweet spot. I just don't understand where 3-4 has become the standard, it's not even what the chart suggests.

With all the above said, it seems this info was IMHO ok when we didn't have UV emitting bulbs that now can vary their levels ( ie Lumenize ) and probably need to start rethinking some of this.

IMO yes they see those high readings in the wild. They have unlimited space to move in and out and through the micro climates and spectrums. In our enclosures there is always an end not an infinite space no matter how big the enclosure. So I would opt on the side of caution with radiation exposure to our chameleons in enclosures indoors. Now outside keeping with nice large enclosures with natural variables such as wind, shade, clouds and plenty of room to move. I am sure they could handle that UVI.

 

[regal81455]

IMO yes they see those high readings in the wild. They have unlimited space to move in and out and through the micro climates and spectrums. In our enclosures there is always an end not an infinite space no matter how big the enclosure. So I would opt on the side of caution with radiation exposure to our chameleons in enclosures indoors. Now outside keeping with nice large enclosures with natural variables such as wind, shade, clouds and plenty of room to move. I am sure they could handle that UVI.

So what's big enough? The UVI levels read zero in my enclosure beyond the 1/2 way point vertically and are zero laterally of the UVB probably even quicker so he is able to move in and out of it at his own free will. With what you say above that seems to match the ability to come a go as they please they would have in the wild.

 

[regal81455]

Also chams generally only sun bath for 10-20min in the early morning and evening. And guess what those numbers are

Guess it depends on what is considered early morning lol because by 9a its already 5+

 

[Texas Ranger]

So what's big enough? The UVI levels read zero in my enclosure beyond the 1/2 way point vertically and are zero laterally of the UVB probably even quicker so he is able to move in and out of it at his own free will. With what you say above that seems to match the ability to come a go as they please they would have in the wild.

For those extremes I would say as big as possible and outdoors. Let look back on history of uvb bulbs and modern technology T5 high output bulbs. History of uvb bulbs tells us to be cautious because a lot of very unhealthy things can happen look a CFL Bulbs or mercury vapor bulbs both very high and concentrated synthetic spectrums that have caused many issues. Now take that same principle and add it to a length of potential indoor enclosure with a T5 high output. You come to same potential dangers of over exposure to uvb or even worse organ issues or blinding of the animal. There needs to be way more research done before extremes of any Ferguson zone is applied indoors IMO. As in how big of area is needed, what is unhealthy and of no benefit and time frames of the synthetic UVB/UVI also what natural things may need to be added as in more shade or wind. Because at the end of the day these bulbs are not the sun and do not 100% recreation the sun and it’s perfect balance of spectrums all living things rely on to live. These are a manufactured product with a specific spectrum made by human not nature

 

[regal81455]

So again, not saying we should provide our animals with the extremes that are possible in the wild but Fergusons own chart isn't extreme when correlated with the wild. It says basking should be 3-7 so why do we keep insisting on 3-4 especially now that the uvb fixtures are able to vary the amount of uv emitted?

I still have not heard an actual direct statement why what the Ferguson zone suggests for the basking area shouldn't be followed.

 

[Texas Ranger]

So again, not saying we should provide our animals with the extremes that are possible in the wild but Fergusons own chart isn't extreme when correlated with the wild. It says basking should be 3-7 so why do we keep insisting on 3-4 especially now that the uvb fixtures are able to vary the amount of uv emitted?

I still have not heard an actual direct statement why what the Ferguson zone suggests for the basking area shouldn't be followed.

My suggestion is to reach out to people like Gary Ferguson and other like Frances Baines and ask. I am sure they have an answer and why the recommendations are what they are.

 

[regal81455]

As a matter of record, my guys basking area runs some where around 3.3 depending on the angle of the meter ( which needs a redesign btw ). The photocell / sensor should be situated in away that the sensor is on the shortest side and the readout is on an edge that could be read when laid flat but that's an issue for another day.

My contention is that it's ok to have say 7-11 at your top screen.

If your cham climbs up there and under it then there has to be a biological reason. It's not getting the UV it desires so it's getting close as possible to get as much as it's capable. IME they don't stay up there too long before moving away as we've mentioned above. They are then, atleast, provided with the possibility of more if desired and have no issues getting out of it.

 

[regal81455]

My suggestion is to reach out to people like Gary Ferguson and other like Frances Baines and ask. I am sure they have an answer and why the recommendations are what they are.

Dr. Ferguson's own suggestion on his own published chart that is widely available is 3-7 for basking area. So why would I have to ask him directly?

 

[regal81455]

As a matter of record, my guys basking area runs some where around 3.3 depending on the angle of the meter ( which needs a redesign btw ). The photocell / sensor should be situated in away that the sensor is on the shortest side and the readout is on an edge that could be read when laid flat but that's an issue for another day.

Come to think of it. Even better would be a wifi sensor that reads out via app. I think someone posted one somewhere on here...

Excuse me while I run to Amazon and start searching!

 

[Texas Ranger]

My suggestion is to reach out to people like Gary Ferguson and other like Frances Baines and ask. I am sure they have an answer and why the recommendations are what they are.

I read my comment and it seemed very short and rude. That was not intended. But as in the other day when talking about burning in a bulb it’s all a matter of opinion. And going to sources for there recommendations is probably the thing to do. From there you make an educated decision on that information. Just like I choose to burn in my bulbs per manufacturer others don’t per company recommendations.

 

[Texas Ranger]

Dr. Ferguson's own suggestion on his own published chart that is widely available is 3-7 for basking area. So why would I have to ask him directly?

That would be a good question to ask as to why the wide spectrum? Is it to meet a wide range of animals in the specific spectrum? I assume so.

 

[regal81455]

I read my comment and it seemed very short and rude. That was not intended. But as in the other day when talking about burning in a bulb it’s all a matter of opinion. And going to sources for there recommendations is probably the thing to do. From there you make an educated decision on that information. Just like I choose to burn in my bulbs per manufacturer others don’t per company recommendations.

Thanks but I didn't take it that way; I've got thick skin and can handle the heat lol

Agreed, you do you.

With that said, Arcadia worked with the manf direct, on those bulbs / fixtures. Why would you think the manf stance on the subject is any different from the company that spec'd the stuff out? Did you read the response provided by Arcadia on that thread? Just like I had mentioned, that was all old news, tech has changed since then.

 

[Texas Ranger]

Thanks but I didn't take it that way; I've got thick skin and can handle the heat lol

Agreed, you do you.

With that said, Arcadia worked with the manf direct, on those bulbs / fixtures. Why would you think the manf stance on the subject is any different from the company that spec'd the stuff out? Did you read the response provided by Arcadia on that thread? Just like I had mentioned, that was all old news, tech has changed since then.

I read what Arcadia has said. But I have experienced bad bulbs from all manufacturers over many years so I will still burn in and test everyone. Just as the guide for testing bulbs requires a 100hr. Burn in before testing to date is still applied

 

[regal81455]

What guide are you referring to? Again, we all should do what we feel comfortable with but I'm pretty sure this guide you're mentioning is outdated info. It can be hard to accept change, I get that and you should do what is and has been working for you but I don't think it benefits the hobby in anyway to suggest something that the manf and/or company producing the product don't actually suggest. They know their products alot better then us laymens.

 

[Beman]

If your cham climbs up there and under it then there has to be a biological reason. It's not getting the UV it desires so it's getting close as possible to get as much as it's capable. IME they don't stay up there too long before moving away as we've mentioned above. They are then, atleast, provided with the possibility of more if desired and have no issues getting out of it.

So is your thread coming from the other thread in which you told someone that their brand new cham was climbing the top screen due to incorrect UVI or temps?

I guess I am confused at what you are wanting to get out of this thread.. If Fergusons chart says 3-7 and they are stating a 3 UVI why would you want to provide even more? When it has been found that a 3 UVI is perfectly sufficient and provides them with long healthy lives. More does not equal better. Look at bee pollen. When provided in excess you can see issues of edema develop but when provided in moderate levels in a supplement or in a gutload you do not see the same issues.

My contention is that it's ok to have say 7-11 at your top screen.

But this would not be ok. For babies and young chams that screen climb constantly on the top you would then be putting them in overexposure levels for long periods of time. This is why breeders always lift fixtures up off the top of the cage. Even these numbers are much higher than the Ferguson zone recommendations.

I think it comes down to what is being recommended has been found to not only be safe but provides chams with the means to live long healthy lives in captivity in these small cages we put them into. It has already been stated by hobby leaders that veileds and Panthers can handle safely up to a 6 uvi. But again why provide more if a 3 works the way they need it to?