Strange white dot on his nostril

[ferretinmyshoes]

Ask yourself why some chameleons have the "white stuff around the nose" but others don't.

Varying levels of salt in the water - cities have hugely varying levels of sodium, chloride and potassium in their water and most people use tap water for their chams. Have we examined everyone's water report to rule out this very obvious variation and leave calcium as the only possible cause?

Ask yourself why some chameleons have issues with excess calcium and others don't.

Whose? What problems do we see from excess calcium?

 

[Elizadolots]

You're right. It does not mention calcium.

However, it supports the idea that the salt expression gland would adapt to a calcium rich environment.

So, I think it's inappropriate to use her research as proof (as Kinyongia and you have) that it is not calcium.

That's all I'm saying.

If you have reasons other than her research to believe it's proven that the white crusts are not calcium, then that's great. Please post them. I'll be happy to read them.

If you don't have those, then saying it's not calcium supplementation (which the board experience supports) is lacking in proof.

Again...no intent to be hostile, just a desire for the truth. If the truth is "we're not so sure" that's fine. I just don't want people saying "this is the truth" when they have no support for their statement.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

Here's what she says in the intro to her study:

Quote:
An underlying, sometimes unstated, assumption of studies on marine species has been that their glands are adapted for sodium excretion, whereas the glands of terrestrial herbivores are adapted for potassium secretion. However, it is possible that there is little or no difference in the actual secretory capabilities of the glands of marine and terrestrial species, and that the sodium or potassium secretion observed in the field is simply dictated by dietary ion content.

You are completely twisting her words to make them fit your goal. She is quite clearly referring to the abilities of the gland to secrete primarily either sodium or potassium based on the dietary levels of those ions. Not just any salt in the world! Riddle me this: do you think that the animals in her study were deficient of calcium? As wild caught specimens I am going to assume that none of them had MBD or obvious deficiencies, so they must have had a good level of calcium growing up to get that way. In that case why wouldn't they see any calcium in their analysis?

 

[Elizadolots]

Okay, I'm headed for bed so can't research it, but there have been threads about chameleons with calcium over dose issues. I'll try to find them tomorrow.

I would love to see a study done (or just a thread about) the whole "crust on nose" thing...

If I'm correct, only captive raised chameleons would have the problem. A quick check awhile ago suggested that most questions on it involved young chameleons....

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

So what do you think of the city water salt levels being an obvious contributing factor to an already proven system that would be affected by it? Your paper proves that salt levels in the diet (which would include water intake) influence these deposits. and I know in my city, the salt content is outrageous. Is it just irony that when I moved here my boys had some salt deposits and once I switched to lower sodium bottled water (without changing their supplementation at all) that they went away?

I'll post some more documentation for your consideration tomorrow. I'm already up way past my bedtime as it is.

 

[Elizadolots]

You are completely twisting her words to make them fit your goal. She is quite clearly referring to the abilities of the gland to secrete primarily either sodium or potassium based on the dietary levels of those ions. Not just any salt in the world! Riddle me this: do you think that the animals in her study were deficient of calcium? As wild caught specimens I am going to assume that none of them had MBD or obvious deficiencies, so they must have had a good level of calcium growing up to get that way. In that case why wouldn't they see any calcium in their analysis?

No...I'm not. She never mentions "primarily" in her report. She clearly says "any ion".

I think the animals in her study were not domestic so she had no reason to include calcium in her study.

You seem to believe that she would have addressed calcium even though none of her animals were exposed to it as an excess salt in their youth....

 

[kinyonga]

"A number of species have nasal salt glands for excretion of sodium and chloride in response to an osmotic load. White crusty deposits may be seen around the nares of chameleons as well as green iguanas and other lizards and are normal findings. Certain species also secrete potassium as well as sodium, and chloride or bicarbonate. The system helps to conserve water while ridding the body of excess minerals."...
http://www.chameleonnews.com/02NovDonoghue.html

"Magnesium and calcium salts are excreted by the intestine and kidneys"...
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Water-Salt+Exchange

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

Kinyonga has given you some more food for thought. And let's break down this paper you're clinging to a little better for those who actually have not read it:

No...I'm not. She never mentions "primarily" in her report. She clearly says "any ion".

Oh I'm sorry, I should have said "predominate" since that is the word she preferred...

Feeding on subtidal/intertidal algae, it incurs a high load of salts (primarily sodium chloride, with some potassium) from its food (Dunson, 1969; Shoemaker and Nagy, 1984). To cope with this high-salt diet, the ma- rine iguana uses large cranial salt glands that ex- crete most of the sodium, potassium, and chlo- ride ingested; forceful expulsion of the secreted fluid is the cause of the dramatic snorting and sneezing observed in these animals (Schmidt- Nielsen and Fange, 1958). Other lizards also possess these extrarenal osmoregulatory organs (reviews in Peaker and Linzell, 1975; Dunson, 1976; Minnich, 1979, 1982). They are typically found in herbivorous or omnivorous lizards feeding on potassium-rich plants and secrete predominantly potassium chloride.

This chapter summarizes the distribution of salt glands among lizard taxa and evaluates aspects of salt secretion that might be important for the evolution of marine lizards. There are three major descriptive characteristics of salt secretion: secretion rate, composition of the se- creted fluid, and concentration of the secreted fluid.

If her introduction states the purpose of her research as being to classify the composition of secreted fluid why would she just decide not to include calcium? Just for funsies? You can't read between the lines of a scientific paper. If it is not mentioned then it is not relevant, or else it is a bad paper.

Field ion budgets have been constructed for several lizard species with salt glands (table 6.2). In most of these species, the gland is respon- sible for a significant proportion of the animal’s daily sodium, potassium, and chloride excretion.

If water is limited, the gland may be more important for chloride excretion than for cation excretion.

In most birds and reptiles with salt glands, the glands secrete concentrated solutions of sodium chloride (Peaker and Linzell, 1975).

Not this and maybe something else. This is the function: to secrete sodium chloride.

Most lizards with salt glands typically secrete potassium chloride under natural conditions (Dunson, 1976); this is true even for insectivorous species without high potassium intake. In species that feed on marine or intertidal foods, sodium excretion predominates

Individual lizards can vary the composition of the secreted fluid. With long-term (several days) exposure to NaCl loads, potassium-secreting animals will gradually increase sodium output (Shoemaker et al., 1972). This phenomenon is controlled by the endocrine system: aldosterone and prolactin both decrease sodium excretion; absence of aldos- terone increases sodium excretion (Shoemaker et al., 1972; Bradshaw et al., 1984a; Hazard, 1999).

This quote in particular is meaningful. You are interpreting the earlier mentioned "variation statement" to mean "anything is possible" when Dr. Harzard quite clearly states that the variation she is referring to is in the context of one of the 3 primary ions in relation to the others. Not "anything goes". And again, this is further evidence for my theory of why calcium would not need to be excreted. Calcium is not controlled through aldosterone and prolactin. If that is the entire mechanism that drives the salt gland then why would some uninvolved ion suddenly come into play?

Most were iguanians and secreted predominately potassium; some were varanids and secreted predominately sodium.

However, if the fraction of sodium increases, the Na:K ratio can increase indefinitely.

This is literally the only mention of "indefinite adaptability" and she tells you directly what she means by that: still only in context of sodium and potassium.

Lots of mention of sodium, potassium and chloride very specifically. Nowhere in her definitive statements of the function of the gland or the results of her work does it say "any ion in the whole world".

That's just the first half of the paper. The second half has more where that came from.

I think the animals in her study were not domestic so she had no reason to include calcium in her study.

You seem to believe that she would have addressed calcium even though none of her animals were exposed to it as an excess salt in their youth....

That is grasping for straws and reading between the lines to find something that isn't there. If someone is writing a paper specifically on the composition of salt gland excretion then they should (if they are a good researcher) mention all the ions that are found in significant quantity. If you are so convinced that calcium was there but she just failed to mention it then we shouldn't even be arguing over the validity of this paper's claims because who knows what else she failed to mention. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Elizadolots]

It's not grasping at straws. As repeatedly pointed out she says:

The ontogeny of salt glands in lizards has not been studied, and it is possible that individuals exposed to different ions early in life may retain a tendency to secrete different ions in a laboratory situation

She also says:

Although most species secrete either primarily potassium or primarily sodium under natural conditions, many appear to be capable of a wide range of cation secretion when subjected to experimental ion loads.

What her study proved is that the salt secreted by the iguana salt gland is determined by the salt the animal was exposed to early in life. Even if that animal was removed from that environment and exposed to large quantities of another salt, the gland would excrete primarily the salt to which is had adapted.

Nothing more.

The subtitle of the paper is: ACCLIMATION OR ADAPTATION?

Why doesn't she specifically address calcium? Because it is not natural for an animal to grow up in an environment where the predominate salt is calcium carbonate. That happens when an animal is in captivity being fed white, calcium covered crickets. However, as shown above, she specifically says it is possible that an animal exposed to a different ion would adapt to excrete that ion.

Kinyongia, thank you for the reference citing the fact that over supplementation of calcium can be the cause of health problems. Also, that an excess of sodium can be the cause of edema (which would not happen if the animal were excreting it via the salt gland).

Note that this reference indicates some animals excrete bicarbonate via the salt gland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_bicarbonate

Dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) in rainwater (H2O) reacts with limestone, calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to form soluble calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCO3)2).

The calcium supplements typically used are calcium carbonate, which, when dissolved turn into soluble calcium bicarbonate. As Kinyongia cites, some animals are known to excrete bicarbonate through their salt glands.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

Calcium carbonate is NOT the same as bicarbonate at all. Just sounding the same doesn't make them interchangeable. They have completely different functions in the body and are made totally differently so it is not that simple. This is going to sound rude and I realize that, but you do not understand the science behind it and you are not interpreting scientific papers correctly so arguing with you is fruitless. You are picking a choosing what you want to hear to try to build a case, but the entire other 10 pages say the opposite. I am tired of arguing with you about something you don't have any knowledge of. Flaunting that one sentence in my face that has been taken out of context as your "proof" is not going to cut it.

Here are some more papers for you to read that all talk exclusively of sodium, potassium, chloride and bicarbonate. They are different authors too so it's not just one viewpoint we are considering. Not one of them even mentions calcium in passing.

Aldosterone and the Control of Secretion by the Nasal Salt Gland of the North African Desert Lizard, Uromastix acanthinurus

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT LOADS ON THE NASAL GLAND SECRETION OF THE
LIZARD UROMASTZX ACANTHINURUS (AGAMIDAE)
AND RELATIONS WITH ITS FUNCTION

Salt Gland Secretion by an Intertidal Lizard, Uta tumidarostra

If you can find scientific proof where someone published actually says specifically that calcium is among the salts that can be excreted through the salt gland and not just an ambiguous statement then I will be happy to discuss it further.

 

[Elizadolots]

I did not say calcium bicarbonate is the same as calcium carbonate. I pointed out that calcium bicarbonate is a product of calcium carbonate combined with water.

Which is true.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/512412-what-is-calcium-bicarbonate/

Calcium bicarbonate is not a naturally occurring solid, but it does form in water when calcium, carbonate and bicarbonate ions are dissolved with carbon dioxide

Posting links to professional papers which have to be purchased and challenging the other to read them is sort of silly, isn't it?

And, yet again. I am not claiming that Dr. Hazard's paper proves the deposits are calcium.

I am saying that Dr. Hazard's paper does not prove that the deposits are NOT calcium. I do not believe that the issue of calcium was addressed at all in her paper and that there was, in fact, no reason for her to address it as she was studying animals in who matured in their natural environment.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

I did not say calcium bicarbonate is the same as calcium carbonate. I pointed out that calcium bicarbonate is a product of calcium carbonate combined with water.

Which is true.

True as that may be in a laboratory setting where you're mixing pure elements directly that is not how the body works. If it were just one giant melting pot that allowed any ions to mix with whatever they wanted we'd be a bowl of hydrochloric acid. Hydrogen and chloride are vastly abundant in our bodies, but there are mechanisms in place to prevent them from forming into highly caustic acid anywhere but in the stomach. There are many regulatory mechanisms like that for just about everything.

There are cellular transport mechanisms for bicarbonate in many cell types, probably like those of salt glands. That's used to maintain homeostasis (water and electrolyte balance and pH). Calcium bicarbonate does not use that system at all and has to be actively excreted in the kidneys. So that doesn't make any sense. It's basic physiology. Not all cells have the capability to do whatever they want. The majority of them are very limited beyond basic homeostasis. Why would nearly a dozen papers (I read more than I posted) from different authors all say the exact same things if that wasn't the case? I have found a bunch of evidence saying it's not calcium. Time for you to provide some for your point.

And, yet again. I am not claiming that Dr. Hazard's paper proves the deposits are calcium.

I am saying that Dr. Hazard's paper does not prove that the deposits are NOT calcium. I do not believe that the issue of calcium was addressed at all in her paper and that there was, in fact, no reason for her to address it as she was studying animals in who matured in their natural environment.

By that logic I can talk all about how diamonds are formed by compression of carbon at high pressure and temperature but you can infer that you can also make them from table salt in the same conditions because I didn't specifically say otherwise.

I didn't realize you couldn't see the papers I posted. Would you like me to email them to you?

 

[Elizadolots]

No, but thank you for the offer.

How is saying Dr. Hazard did not prove the reptile salt gland cannot excrete calcium anything like making diamonds from salt?

Please, really...I want to know.

I realize you are "in the field" and have more science education than I (probably not as much as you imagine, but I'm sure it's much more) but science is not wizardry. It's logical and reasonable and intelligent people can read scientific papers and get valid information from them.

One thing I did study at the college level is logic and "you can't prove a negative" is a logical truism. Dr. Hazard's work cannot prove a negative. If she had addressed calcium and shown that it was not expressed, her work could be used as support. However, the fact that she did not address calcium means her work should not be used to support the theory that nasal salt glands cannot express calcium.

Here are references you might consider.

It is not necessary to purchase this article because the relevant part can be read in the preview:http://www.jstor.org/pss/1442186

Potassium, sodium, chloride, and bicarbonate ions are present in high concentration in the nasal fluid of the false iquana,Ctenosaura pectinata. Calcium ions and inorganic phosphorus are present in low concentrations.

Again, the abstract has the important part: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016648082900211

The effects of salmon calcitonin (sCT) on nasal salt gland secretion and on the renal excretion of Ca, inorganic phosphate (P), Na, and K were investigated in the lizard Dipsosaurus dorsalis.

Both of those reference calcium in nasal excretions of reptile. The first one addresses the phenomenon of the gland adjusting to a more dominate environmental salt, which is what Dr. Hazard's work proved could happen.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

I realize you are "in the field" and have more science education than I (probably not as much as you imagine, but I'm sure it's much more) but science is not wizadry.

I am *this* close to being a fully licensed veterinarian, for which I have been preparing literally my entire life. I have extensive training in chemistry, biology, physiology, anatomy, pharmacology, medicine, surgery, etc. etc. etc. Vet school is even harder to get into than medical school. It is more competitive and we study a far larger range of knowledge since we take the previously mentioned basics and have to apply them to a multitude of incredibly varied species. I have been thoroughly trained on how to integrate facts and evidence to arrive at logical conclusions consistent with the scientific consensus by the experts of our fields. I am not just "in the field". I can speak with a certain level of authority on subjects like this because I have the background and knowledge level due to my training to actually be an authority. What do you do for a living out of curiosity? Do you also have a professional degree in advanced sciences? You clearly put that statement in just to provoke me. It worked.

However, the fact that she did not address calcium means her work should not be used to support the theory that nasal salt glands cannot express calcium.

How does it make logical sense that lack of mention is positive proof for something? When you go to court you take evidence to prove that something exists or occured. You don't take evidence of something entirely different and use it to say "well you can't disprove this other thing since it wasn't mentioned". Lack of mention is absolutely terrible evidence for the existence of something. Surely logic taught you that.

One thing I did study at the college level is logic and "you can't prove a negative" is a logical truism.

You absolutely can. I suggest you do some reading. This is you right here regarding Dr Hazard's work:

Argument of Ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

Putting aside your bitter comment and illogical argument, I applaud you for actually finding some documentation in support of your previously unsubstantiated claim. In my search I did not run across anything that even mentioned calcium as being a possible component of the excretion. While I find that fascinating in itself you are still missing the point.

(from further in the paper because the abstract is not everything) Ca and P were present only in trace amounts. Grenot (1968) also reported only trace amounts of Ca and Mg in the nasal secretions of the lizard Uromastix acanthinurus.

So yes, I concede your point that calcium can be excreted by the nasal salt gland. HOWEVER, back to my original argument: if it is present is it significant enough to be of concern? As a TRACE amount (defined as extremely small amount) then the answer is still NO. The predominant components (yep, that phrase is still used in these papers as well) are sodium, potassium, chloride and bicarbonate. Most likely in our case because of salt levels in tap water. So still the actual deposits themselves are primarily not calcium. It is virtually impossible to overdose a reptile on calcium (in a mammals it is much easier and the effects are a concern) according to board certified reptile veterinarians who really are at the highest level of their fields. The question has been asked repeatedly and the answer is always the same - we really do not see effects of overdose even when we inject calcium directly.

Back to the salt deposits themselves - do they cause harm with their presence? Are the caustic? Are they evidence of renal failure? Are they directly harming the animal? I think we can agree that the answer to all of those is no. You can wipe them away, or you can leave them there, to no ill effect of the animal at all either way. So why does it matter?

So let me ask you this: knowing now that there may be small amounts of calcium present in already harmless salt deposits that do not have any negative effect and that calcium overdose in a reptile is really not a valid concern, and knowing the high rate of calcium deficiency that we see on a near daily basis, are you really so obsessed with being "right" that you are willing to risk the health of chameleons by recommending that they cut back on supplementation? Is it so important to you to make your point that you are going to recommend something with well known devastating consequences? I am willing to concede that calcium can be secreted by the nasal salt gland. Can you do the same to realize that your recommendation to cut back on supplementation is a bad one?

 

[lowstorm]

Here's a site to find all of Dr. Lisa Hazard's information. If you are questioning her work, I'm sure she can answer any questions either of you have: http://www.csam.montclair.edu/biology/bioweb/lisa_hazard_phd_assistant_p.html

I think they're both saying that white crusty things won't harm your Cham though (he sure is darling)

 

[Elizadolots]

lowstorm, thank you. I have already sent Dr. Hazard an e-mail and gotten an "out of office" auto-reply.

ferret, I'm aware of your situation. You have mentioned it in other posts. That is why I said I knew you had much more knowledge than I.

I have been trying quite hard to remain polite as you ignore the most salient parts of my posts and misrepresent what I say, but it is difficult.

You say:

How does it make logical sense that lack of mention is positive proof for something?

I have never said lack of mention is positive proof of something. It is you that make that claim. You claim that because she didn't mention calcium, the salt gland cannot possibly express calcium. You do that despite the fact that Dr. Hazard clearly says twice that she believes the gland is not limited to the ions mentioned in the study. I have quoted those parts of her report here.

You point to Dr. Hazard's research in your FAQ and claim that it supports the idea the nasal salt gland is not capable of excreting calcium.

That is simply not true.

Over supplementation carries dangers as well as Kinyonga' reference above shows:

Calcium-containing bladder stones can be due to dietary excesses of vitamin D, vitamin C, calcium, sodium, phosphorus, or magnesium, ii) low water intake, iii) urine retention, iv) abnormalities in the excretion of calcium, sodium, or phosphorous, and v) altered pH (acidic for calcium oxalate, alkaline for calcium phosphate) for a variety of medical, endocrine and dietary reasons.

Note that I never advise cutting back on frequency of supplementation, simply cutting back on the amount used at each time and I always mention that the deposit is not harmful. But, they do not require "ghost" crickets in order to get enough calcium and making someone aware of that is not a crime.

As far as I am concerned the "is it calcium?" question is not answered either way. However, the experiential evidence of posters here is that reducing the quantity of calcium used in dusting the crickets (not the frequency) will solve the (not harmful) problem of crusty deposits around the nose. That really should not be ignored and people who mention it should not be told they are wrong when the issue is not, in fact, proven.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

Over supplementation carries dangers as well as Kinyonga' reference above shows:

Yes...we see so many bladder stones, especially compared to the numbers of MBD, don't we. Oh wait...

Note that I never advise cutting back on frequency of supplementation, simply cutting back on the amount used at each time

But why?? If calcium is being excreted in trace amounts, as you've finally provided proof of, then the bulk of the deposit is still the other salts. My calcium supplement is composed purely of calcium carbonate, so it's not contributing to the level of the other salts. So how will reducing the amount of calcium address those other salts which make up the overwhelming majority bulk of the deposits in question? Logically that makes no sense.

The best guess is it's excretion of calcium salt caused by over supplementing. The calcium supplements we use are calcium salt.

This statement is inaccurate by your own process of investigation and is what you have been offering as advice, which is what I have a problem with. While calcium can be a minimal component it is not the cause of the buildups so telling people that it is an excretion of calcium salts without ever mentioning others and that reducing calcium alone is curative is a fallacy. If you want to make sure they are dusting correctly I have no problem with that. But the statement above says nothing about that or the main cause of the problem being other salts.

 

[Elizadolots]

So, you're saying the link Kinyonga supplied about the dangers of over supplementation with calcium, which I quoted was wrong?

Calcium is excreted in trace amounts in those wild animals that have been studied.

No study has been about captive raised animals given calcium carbonate on a regular basis.

Yet, you draw a conclusion about them, ignoring the disparity.

Apparently, you failed to understand Dr. Hazard's research.

Ever optimistic, I'll give it a go:

Dr. Hazard's research shows that the nasal salt gland of an iguana will adapt to the dominate environmental salt it is exposed to as it grows. It will preferentially excrete that salt throughout its life, though it will excrete other salts as well.

That is an adaptation.

So, an animal that has grown up in the wild would, if moved into a calcium rich environment, continue to preferentially excrete the dominate salt of its early life (probably sodium, maybe potassium).

However, by logical extension, an animal that grew up in a calcium rich environment (ghost crickets) would adapt to excrete calcium.

That would only happen with a captive raised animal.

And, for like the gazillionth time....Dr. Hazard says, twice, that she believes the nasal salt gland is not restricted to the two salts discussed in the study.

And, just to argue...

You have provided NO proof that the nasal salt gland is incapable of excreting calcium.

None, nada, nothing.

All you have provided is evidence that it is capable of excreting other salts.

**edited to add**

Here is my first response in this thread:

I wouldn't skip dusting any days as this is a young chameleon. If it is caused by over supplementation, the crust is not harmful. So, can just be ignored. If you want it to go away, I would suggest reducing the amount of calcium used at every feeding. You can also just dust half the feeders (every day). Up the misting for a few days and the crust should go away.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

So, you're saying the link Kinyonga supplied about the dangers of over supplementation with calcium, which I quoted was wrong?

No what I'm saying is the risks of oversupplementation are far, far less common and far less detrimental.
How many times has someone come on here with a bladder stone in a cham? NEVER (to my knowledge, and if there are cases I bet I could count them on one hand)
How many times do we see cases of MBD and calcium deficiency? DAILY
So which is more dangerous? Half the bladder stones found in other lizards and tortoises don't need to be removed because they don't cause problems and the risk of taking them out is worse than them continuing to be there. We've seen plenty of the devastating effects of MBD. Something that causes death on a frequent basis is much more concerning to me.

Calcium is excreted in trace amounts in those wild animals that have been studied.

No study has been about captive raised animals given calcium carbonate on a regular basis.

Then WHY are you making claims that differ so much from wild animals about them if no studies have been done???

Yet, you draw a conclusion about them, ignoring the disparity.

I believe that was you actually...see statement above.

Apparently, you failed to understand Dr. Hazard's research.

The fact that you are clinging so tightly to a single paper when so many others have been provided already makes your argument incredibly weak. In the scientific world we use lots of papers to arrive at conclusions rather just one. Just because it's published does not mean it's an excellent paper. That's why you use collective data from multiple sources.

So, an animal that has grown up in the wild would, if moved into a calcium rich environment, continue to preferentially excrete the dominate salt of its early life (probably sodium, maybe potassium).

However, by logical extension, an animal that grew up in a calcium rich environment (ghost crickets) would adapt to excrete calcium.

*Sigh* I don't even know where to start here. That statement about adaptation to other ions was quite clearly purely conjecture. No studies have ever been done on captive animals or even wild animals exposed to high levels of some other ion like calcium. So logical extension to you says it can change radically. Logical extension to me says no because multiple people have studied multiple species in multiple varied environments and in the over a dozen papers that I have read on this so far (and there are many more that look pretty much the same) the predominate salts are always sodium or potassium. You think those animals were only exposed to high levels of just those two things in the whole wild world growing up? That's just ignorant.

You have provided NO proof that the nasal salt gland is incapable of excreting calcium.

We settled this one already for the love of pete!!! I didn't have proof that said it couldn't (although evidence was highly in favor of that) and you didn't have proof that said it could. Once you found proof that it can be excreted in trace amounts I conceded to that. What do you want me to do, erect some kind of pillar in honor of it? Don't go back to old arguments we already settled.

Let's review what we've found:
- Over a dozen papers (with dozens more where they came from) from multiple authors on many species of lizards from many different environments - nasal salt glands excrete primarily either potassium or sodium with some levels of chloride and bicarbonate. This depends on dietary intake as to how the gland adapts to which one it will adapt to excreting the most of.
- 2 papers that show TRACE amounts of calcium being excreted with still the predominant concentration being sodium or potassium.
- One sentence of pure conjecture about an aspect that was not looked at in the least bit because the study was on wild animals in natural environments.

This argument is the same as finding a paper that says "while the predominant population of bunnies is ground dwelling there is chance that there are flying bunnies somewhere in the world". Can you prove to me there are flying bunnies? Not that I'm aware of, but can I disprove flying bunnies? I guess not because I haven't been to every place in the world to check for flying bunnies. But research tells me that every other population of bunnies known is ground dwelling and that has been studied a lot. So while I can't say with 100% certainty that there are not flying bunnies, although evidence is highly in favor of that, you can't provide me that there is ANY evidence that there is.

No one has studied captive reptiles or those exposed to a high level of a particular ion growing up to see if the gland is that adaptable to change its function so drastically but the consensus of all the other work done tells me that it shouldn't be. And like I said earlier, calcium does not have a major role in fluid balance and life function like sodium and potassium does and is easily excreted by the kidneys so it doesn't need to be excreted from the salt gland in that degree. Just because something is present doesn't mean the body must change in a very particular way to do something about it, especially when it's not life threatening for it to be there. Excess sodium or potassium can kill them so it makes sense to have a backup. It doesn't make sense that it needs a backup for calcium. Logic.

This argument has come to an end for me as far as I'm concerned. You made some valid points, and you found interesting papers that I have added to my collection. But your argument of ignorance makes it not worth my time to continue to argue with you. I enjoy a stimulating scientific debate that brings forth new ideas to consider, but not Russell's teapot. I will amend my future advice to include that calcium can be present in the crusts, but will maintain that it is not the primary cause of them and that changes should be made to the salt content of the food and water if they want them to go away. I hope you will do the same to say that there are other major salts involved and that supplementation should not be forsaken since there are major other factors at play. Thanks for the discourse.

 

[kinyonga]

Ferret said..."How many times has someone come on here with a bladder stone in a cham? NEVER (to my knowledge, and if there are cases I bet I could count them on one hand)
How many times do we see cases of MBD and calcium deficiency? DAILY
So which is more dangerous? "...
I have to agree, there is more danger IMHO of calcium deficiency than calcium causing bladder stones in chameleons.

Vladdimir26...what did you end up doing??

You said..."I needed to dust his crickets with his calcium with d3 and multivitamins and his calcium without d3. I don't know if it's ok to mix those 3 when ever its his "special" supplementation days. Also I think i shouldn't have given him the two calciums today"...mixing the vitamins together with the calcium (or even feeding them the two at the same time) can lead to other minerals/vitamins not being absorbed from what I've read...so I always skip the calcium on the days I use the vitamins/minerals.

Here's some information I hope will help you with supplementing, etc.....
Appropriate cage temperatures aid in digestion and thus play a part indirectly in nutrient absorption.

Exposure to UVB from either direct sunlight or a proper UVB light allows the chameleon to produce D3 so that it can use the calcium in its system to make/keep the bones strong and be used in other systems in the chameleon as well. The UVB should not pass through glass or plastic no matter whether its from the sun or the UVB light. The most often recommended UVB light is the long linear fluorescent Repti-sun 5.0 tube light. Some of the compacts, spirals and tube lights have caused health issues, but so far there have been no bad reports against this one.

A wide variety of insects that have been well fed and gutloaded should be fed to it.

Since many of the feeder insects we use in captivity have a poor ratio of calcium to phosphorus in them, its important to dust the insects just before you feed them to the chameleon at most feedings with a phos.-free calcium powder to help make up for it. (I use Rep-cal phosphorus-free calcium).

If you also dust twice a month with a phos.-free calcium/D3 powder it will ensure that your chameleon gets some D3 without overdoing it. It leaves the chameleon to produce the rest of what it needs through its exposure to the UVB light. D3 from supplements can build up in the system but D3 produced from exposure to UVB shouldn't as long as the chameleon can move in and out of it. (I use Rep-cal phos.-free calcium/D3).

Dusting twice a month as well with a vitamin powder that contains a beta carotene (prOformed) source of vitamin A will ensure that the chameleon gets some vitamins without the danger of overdosing the vitamin A. PrEformed sources of vitamin A can build up in the system and may prevent the D3 from doing its job and push the chameleon towards MBD. However, there is controversy as to whether all/any chameleons can convert the beta carotene and so some people give some prEformed vitamin A once in a while. (I use herptivite which has beta carotene.)

Gutloading/feeding the insects well helps to provide what the chameleon needs. I gutload crickets, roaches, locusts, superworms, etc. with an assortment of greens (dandelions, kale, collards, endive, escarole, mustard greens, etc.) and veggies (carrots, squash, sweet potato, sweet red pepper, zucchini, etc.)

Calcium, phos., D3 and vitamin A are important players in bone health and other systems in the chameleon (muscles, etc.) and they need to be in balance. When trying to balance them, you need to look at the supplements, what you feed the insects and what you feed the chameleon.
Please note that various supplements have various amounts of D3 and vitamin A and so some can be given more often than others. The idea still is not to overdo the fat soluble vitamins like D3 and prEformed vitamin A.

Here are some good sites for you to read too...
http://chameleonnews.com/07FebWheelock.html
http://web.archive.org/web/200605020...Vitamin.A.html
http://web.archive.org/web/200406080...d.Calcium.html
http://www.uvguide.co.uk/
http://web.archive.org/web/200601140...ww.adcham.com/
If you can't access the sites above that have the word "archive" in you can do it through the WayBackMachine.