a2zcreatures
New Member
I was wondering if anybody has been experimenting with ways to speed up the egg process... some people raise the degrees slowy ect.. what have you tried that has worked?
Egg Incubation
- Thread starter a2zcreatures
- Start date
yankfanthom
Established Member
I just had eggs laid Sept 2nd hatch out over the past 3 days. All I did was a constant 74 degrees with 80% humidity and kept them in hatch right. So far 6 months later and 11 out of 11 hatched so far with 15 more to go. All so far healthy and active.
Canny Chams
New Member
If i were you i would be trying to get them in as long as possible, i have gotten 5 clutches of eggs, in my panther cham breeding days, clutches took 6,9,9,11,10,13 monthes. The 6 month incubation had one of the worst GROWING results ever, they were so small, not when they hatched but just as they grew, they were very small. The 13 month ones were strong healthy, and i had quite afew with relatively stunning colors. With crested geckos the breeders are often aiming for as long as possible incubation due to the much better head structure in longer incubation periods, head structure is a big thing in cresty breeding. I think you want to go for whats best for the babies, not patience or wallet
yankfanthom
Established Member
Patience or wallet was never a thought. If they were hatching and dying I would have a concern with the technique. But I've spoken with several breeders who also use the same methods and have had clutches hatch very healthy in 6-7 months. Needless to say the guys I have will be closely watched but so far some are popping their first shed and eating and drinking like pros. Obviously ill have a better idea after a couple of weeks to monitor their growth.
a2zcreatures
New Member
I was just wondering about techniques.. my motives were not money or patience.. i want to know how similar our hatching techniques are to the way its done in the wild.
fluxlizard
Avid Member
To me, I don't see the problem if the speed up is a result of breaking diapuase. Diapause means a pause in developement. Nothing much going on in the egg. Most lizard eggs that do not have diapause take about 2-3 months incubation time. Chameleon species from montain environments take about 4-5 months. So we can guess that maybe about 4 months would be a time of development with diapause perhaps taking up the rest of the time for eggs like panthers or veileds. If diapause has a minimum time of say 6 weeks, the we could say that perhaps anything shorter than 5 1/2 months would indeed reflect a certain speed up of development of the embryo. Anything over that would often be the result of shortening the time period when the embryo is not in fact developing. Which would be a far cry from pushing the baby to grow faster in the egg. Grow sooner, yes, grow faster, no.
The thought behind this diapause is that perhaps eggs laid most of the summer rest through winter with the diapause and then all hatch reasonably soon enough the next year so the babies have time to grow before the next winter (winter being relative- winter for many of these species probably feels a little cooler and dryer, others like veileds have a more temperate winter where it can frost at night). In other words, diapause protects the eggs from hatching in the winter and causes them to sync up with the seasons and clutches laid at the middle or beginning or end of the previous warm season all hatch in a reasonable amount of time after winter. This means a variable incubation length (clutches from the end of the previous year would have a shorter incubation length than clutches laid near the beginning of the previous year). There is a reason for everything going on, and the reasons are good ones for the survival of the babies.
It has nothing to do with some babies developing faster and others slower.
I've had eggs hatch at 5 and 1/2 on up to 13 months depending on the clutch and incubation conditions. The shortest I have personally had, were incubated at fluctuating day/night temperature cycles. (83-84 days, 73-74 nights). Many nowadays incubate using warm for a couple weeks, cold for a couple months, and warm again (warm being relative- upper 70s, cold being mid-upper 60s). This breaks diapause and results in a shorter incubation time- interestingly- about the same as when I used fluctuating temperatures years ago.
I've also used constant warmer temperatures- those eggs often had lengthy incubation times (9-11 months). I do not believe simply warming the eggs shortens the diapause without the cooling. I'm unsure if it speeds development when development occurs. Maybe it does in a bad way- I seem to recall smaller and weaker babies from this kind of incubation. Before reading this thread today and thinking about it, I hadn't thought about it in those terms. I had only concluded that it was not a good way to go for the babies as incubation time was long and babies were small. Thinking of it today- incubation time was probably long because diapause was only broken as a final survival effort of the egg, and then development was too rapid after the break resulting in a small baby.
But that isn't the whole picture- at fluctuating room temperature (closet method) I've had times from about 7 to 13 months. My last batch of veileds hatched at 11 months and were very large and hardy and just took off and did beautifully- no losses, and the ones I kept back were adult size about a month ago (about 4 to 4 1/2 months of age). But they were subjected to seasonal changes- diapause was probably longer and development was probably longer as well. Compared to the constant warm temperature incubations that were lengthy and resulted in small babies- probably from long diapause and short development.
The ones that hatched at short incubation times using the fluctuating temperature method in the old days were nice large robust babies. Probably that breaks diapause in a timely manner and does not force rapid development.
So, it is a little more complicated than short = bad and long = good. Because two things can be shortened or lengthened- diapause and development. Depends on what is shortened and what is lengthened as to whether it is good or bad to do.
The thought behind this diapause is that perhaps eggs laid most of the summer rest through winter with the diapause and then all hatch reasonably soon enough the next year so the babies have time to grow before the next winter (winter being relative- winter for many of these species probably feels a little cooler and dryer, others like veileds have a more temperate winter where it can frost at night). In other words, diapause protects the eggs from hatching in the winter and causes them to sync up with the seasons and clutches laid at the middle or beginning or end of the previous warm season all hatch in a reasonable amount of time after winter. This means a variable incubation length (clutches from the end of the previous year would have a shorter incubation length than clutches laid near the beginning of the previous year). There is a reason for everything going on, and the reasons are good ones for the survival of the babies.
It has nothing to do with some babies developing faster and others slower.
I've had eggs hatch at 5 and 1/2 on up to 13 months depending on the clutch and incubation conditions. The shortest I have personally had, were incubated at fluctuating day/night temperature cycles. (83-84 days, 73-74 nights). Many nowadays incubate using warm for a couple weeks, cold for a couple months, and warm again (warm being relative- upper 70s, cold being mid-upper 60s). This breaks diapause and results in a shorter incubation time- interestingly- about the same as when I used fluctuating temperatures years ago.
I've also used constant warmer temperatures- those eggs often had lengthy incubation times (9-11 months). I do not believe simply warming the eggs shortens the diapause without the cooling. I'm unsure if it speeds development when development occurs. Maybe it does in a bad way- I seem to recall smaller and weaker babies from this kind of incubation. Before reading this thread today and thinking about it, I hadn't thought about it in those terms. I had only concluded that it was not a good way to go for the babies as incubation time was long and babies were small. Thinking of it today- incubation time was probably long because diapause was only broken as a final survival effort of the egg, and then development was too rapid after the break resulting in a small baby.
But that isn't the whole picture- at fluctuating room temperature (closet method) I've had times from about 7 to 13 months. My last batch of veileds hatched at 11 months and were very large and hardy and just took off and did beautifully- no losses, and the ones I kept back were adult size about a month ago (about 4 to 4 1/2 months of age). But they were subjected to seasonal changes- diapause was probably longer and development was probably longer as well. Compared to the constant warm temperature incubations that were lengthy and resulted in small babies- probably from long diapause and short development.
The ones that hatched at short incubation times using the fluctuating temperature method in the old days were nice large robust babies. Probably that breaks diapause in a timely manner and does not force rapid development.
So, it is a little more complicated than short = bad and long = good. Because two things can be shortened or lengthened- diapause and development. Depends on what is shortened and what is lengthened as to whether it is good or bad to do.
Last edited:
