Which UVB is best? | Testing 8 UVB bulbs with a Solarmeter

Gingero

Gingero

Neptune the Chameleon
Site Sponsor
This isn't going to be a video recommending which UVB bulb you should get. There are a lot of factors that go into that decision, such as the type of fixture, enclosure, type of chameleon, branch placement, type of bulb, etc. Instead I'm trying out 8 different UVB bulbs in similar fixtures, to measure the UVI reading with a solarmeter so that you can get a better understanding of UVB and see that not all UVB bulbs are created equal.

Bulbs that are tested:
Reptisun Compact Mini UVB 5.0
Reptisun Compact Mini UVB 10.0
Reptisun Compact UVB 5.0
Reptisun Compact UVB 10.0
Reptisun T8 HO 5.0
Reptisun T8 HO 10.0
Reptisun T5 HO 5.0
Reptisun T5 HO 10.0




It is recommended to get a linear T5 HO (high output) UVB bulb for chameleon, but to know for certain what kind, and where to place your branches, you'll want a solarmeter to measure the correct UVI. Solarmeters can also tell you when you need to replace your UVB. Just because the bulb turns on, does not mean it gives off enough UVB.
 
Last edited:
T8 10.0 seems right. .5 at 12"




You should not take this new 3.0 UVI as "sacred", and some people are going even higher, or saying change when it goes below 3.0.

Gotta remember that till arcadia published there new recommendations in 2018, the "old" recommendation for 12 hour schedules at zoos, that started in the early 1990's, was 30-35 µW/cm² peak when the bulb is fresh, and should be changed at 15-20 µW/cm². 40 to 1 conversion for UVB µW/cm² to UVI. So the old recommendation (with D3 supplements every other week) was .75 UVI at the cham hang out zone. Even on this forum, there was "issues" with recommendations going from the tried and true reptisun 5.0 T8, to the "high power" reptisun 10.0 T8. And the only other massive change, was the switch from the 18-24" tall cages to the 3-4ft tall reptibreeze XL's.

And to help a few others out, im posting your results and the other results from the cham podcast :)

neptune chart.jpg

UVI levels.jpg
 
Thanks for the extra info and insight! SUPER appreciate it. What I love about this hobby is that we are always learning and trying to improve the care we provide this amazing creatures.

I figured 3.0 was a good baseline to measure the bulbs by, as that seems to be the most popular recommendation floating around as of late. But I am by no means attached to that number. If you have other suggestions, I'm all ears. Goal was more to show that not all bulbs are created equal, and that compact and T8 UVBs do not produce adequate UVB.

I'm excited to continue to learn more and better understand UVB and UVI. Who would have thought chameleon keeping would be so sciencey?
 
I would have to agree with @nightanole also the fixtures used where not all compatible the compact bulb wasn’t covered completely with a reflective dome like the mini compact light was so I’m sure it wasn’t a accurate reading. And the T8 fixture didn’t have a reflector like the T5 fixture did.
 
Going forward, 3.0 UVI at the cham hang out zone, with a nice gradient after that with plenty of dead zone that cham also likes to hang out in, may be the way to go. But that also means zero or near zero D3 supplements. You are basically looking for an "outdoor" supplement schedule.

I think the only real issue is mixing lighting and supplement schedules, and not using a meter. As you can see in the cham podcast, with a single 5.0, you can make even a single much higher than what the cham would be exposed to in the wild (they really only bask in the morning and evening) all day long, and if the bottom half of a reptibreeze is not setup to the cham hangs out there, it will have no place to hide, the entire usable area would be a UVI of over 1.


I kinda went 50/50. I aimed for 1.5 UVI as my high, and supplement with stickytongue indoor, which has the lowest dose D3 on the market (several times lower than the popular LoD). I never had any edema or other supplement problems.

So far we have only had cases of using LoD AND 10.0/12% singles, which results in edema after a few months.
 
The only thing special about UVI 3 is that that is the only level that has been tested to work to produce calcified eggs in veiled and panther chameleons without using dietary D3. We in the community have tested it and multiple people have verified it works. This is not to say that UVI 2 or 1 does not work. We just haven’t tested it yet. Once we test those levels and they produce calcified eggs across multiple breeders then I am going to change all of my charts to revolve around UVI 2 - unless there comes another factor that UVB provides. The whole point is to figure out what chameleon husbandry looks like without dietary vitamin D3 and we have to have at least some repeatable tests available for others to verify.

So UVI 3 is the best reference point for 100% natural vitamin D3 production that we have right now. But let’s all be clear that all this is is a tested success point. There is nothing in the work we have done that says UVI 3 is the minimum. In fact, I do not believe it is the minimum. But I cannot say anything lower until I prove it and then others repeat it. Dietary D3 has been a staple of our husbandry for decades and removing it from our husbandry should be done slowly and methodically. Decades of success demands a high level of evidence and testing before it should be replaced. But since dietary D3 is not natural for chameleons it is something worth replacing eventually.
 
DeremensisBlue said:
The only thing special about UVI 3 is that that is the only level that has been tested to work to produce calcified eggs in veiled and panther chameleons without using dietary D3. We in the community have tested it and multiple people have verified it works. This is not to say that UVI 2 or 1 does not work. We just haven’t tested it yet. Once we test those levels and they produce calcified eggs across multiple breeders then I am going to change all of my charts to revolve around UVI 2 - unless there comes another factor that UVB provides. The whole point is to figure out what chameleon husbandry looks like without dietary vitamin D3 and we have to have at least some repeatable tests available for others to verify.

So UVI 3 is the best reference point for 100% natural vitamin D3 production that we have right now. But let’s all be clear that all this is is a tested success point. There is nothing in the work we have done that says UVI 3 is the minimum. In fact, I do not believe it is the minimum. But I cannot say anything lower until I prove it and then others repeat it. Dietary D3 has been a staple of our husbandry for decades and removing it from our husbandry should be done slowly and methodically. Decades of success demands a high level of evidence and testing before it should be replaced. But since dietary D3 is not natural for chameleons it is something worth replacing eventually.
Click to expand...
It’s crazy to think how much is changing and being researched in chameleon husbandry the last decade, especially the last few years.

Technology is helping with this, everything is a click away with your fingers now if you have a phone, and the fact that there are actually people testing and putting in the work to get concrete evidence on if it’s successful or not is really changing the way we can care for these animals. There’s a plethora of information out there now, if you told a keeper from 10 years ago about these new approaches to keeping a chameleon they probably wouldn’t believe you haha.

Obviously nothing is set in stone until more research is done but this is promising stuff to read. Your naturalistic hydration approach raised some eyebrows and it turned out to be a pretty effective method once people started seeing the results from trying it. Hope this UVI and D3 testing ends up the same way down the road.
 
Thanks for that article and new YOUTUBE video.
After a looong run with using T8 tubes with my tortoises, switching over to T5HO for my Chameleons took some convincing.
I also just bought a 6.5R UV METER.
Eye opening for sure!
 
Just wanted to provide you with this @Gingero, as I am not sure if you are in the Reptile Lighting Group, on Facebook.

Fran Baines This very charming lady has obviously put a lot of effort into this video and her idea is commendable, but unfortunately the way that she has tested these bulbs is badly flawed. The most obvious thing she's made a big mistake with, is when taking the readings from the tubes she completely blocks the UVB from over half the tube from reaching the sensor, with her left hand (holding the tape measure, but simultaneously shielding the tube!) So no wonder the readings are so low!
As for the others: if you put a compact lamp in a deep dome, or one that is patently too small, then the dome does not reflect much UVB at all from the sides of the lamp in a downward direction; therefore the only UVB reaching the meter is from the little tip of the tube which is facing it... a great deal less than if the tube is mounted horizontally in a reflector fixture.
It also helps to get the best reading if you hold the meter actually over the light source rather than to one side. Especially with the first dome, which she holds facing outward from the cupboard, but holds the meter against the cupboard which is out of alignment with the main beam of light and UVB.
She needs to hang the lamps from a stable hook under a shelf, and measure from below - it's much easier than trying to hold the lamp in one hand and the meter in the other. And stand the tube fixtures sideways on the bench and measure the UV from the side. Then she won't need to dangle a floppy tape measure from anywhere... actually why not use a 12" school plastic ruler... and when you've got the meter at 12" away, drop the ruler because that, too, shields the sensor from the light.
Having said all that.... although I'm certain the readings will be a lot higher if she re-did them with these basic improvements, her conclusions are quite valid. I have tested all these lamps and I too agree that only the T5-HO tubes are likely to provide a UVI of 3.0 at any "sensible" basking distance.


She also as stated, added that to the YT comments, however her YT name isnt here real name, so to add the source of who that is I posted this :). Thats Dr. Frances Baines, and she was a part of the Ferguson Zone Research, so she knows what she is talking about :).

You also received alot of praise for your Video, and it was posted in said group. Your getting around :).
 
Thanks Cyber for sharing :) I just responded to her YouTube comment and pinned her comment at the top so that others can read it first.

I guess that explains the spike in views and the new subscribers I've gotten today. Very exciting to see my videos impacting more people/chameleons. Today my channel hit 11k views. Slowly, but surely spreading good info about chameleons.

Here is my response for anyone curious:
"Wow wow wow! Thank you for the feedback and additional insights. Super appreciate it <3 In hindsight, I can definitely see how my 'experiment' is flawed. I was trying to show more the general trends of the bulbs versus determining conclusive numbers. It was definitely tricky trying to balance a bulb and measure at the same time haha. The T8 didn't have a reflector which I can definitely see how that would influence the numbers. I was just working with spare fixtures I had laying around. Would probably be worthwhile to test with the appropriate fixtures. I'll be mindful of getting a more accurate readings moving forward if I do another UVI measurement video. I'd like to do one comparing Arcadia bulbs. Have you done any research on those? Do you have any thoughts on the 6% vs 12% vs other %s?"
 
Gingero said:
Thanks Cyber for sharing :) I just responded to her YouTube comment and pinned her comment at the top so that others can read it first.

I guess that explains the spike in views and the new subscribers I've gotten today. Very exciting to see my videos impacting more people/chameleons. Today my channel hit 11k views. Slowly, but surely spreading good info about chameleons.

Here is my response for anyone curious:
"Wow wow wow! Thank you for the feedback and additional insights. Super appreciate it <3 In hindsight, I can definitely see how my 'experiment' is flawed. I was trying to show more the general trends of the bulbs versus determining conclusive numbers. It was definitely tricky trying to balance a bulb and measure at the same time haha. The T8 didn't have a reflector which I can definitely see how that would influence the numbers. I was just working with spare fixtures I had laying around. Would probably be worthwhile to test with the appropriate fixtures. I'll be mindful of getting a more accurate readings moving forward if I do another UVI measurement video. I'd like to do one comparing Arcadia bulbs. Have you done any research on those? Do you have any thoughts on the 6% vs 12% vs other %s?"
Click to expand...
I would love to see the Arcadia versus others . I’ll keep my eyes open for this .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Venutus1
Arcadia ShadeDweller 22.5" fixture is NOT the same as the 22.5" 6% HO fixtures.
Replies
5
Views
380
elizaann2
elizaann2
Steve A
UVB Lighting on new enclosure
Replies
9
Views
816
Beman
Beman
finalflash
Lighting upgrade questions
Replies
7
Views
552
finalflash
finalflash
Hunchx
Chameleon help!
Replies
9
Views
497
MissSkittles
MissSkittles
M
Enclosure Review + Which Arcadia Jungle Dawn Wattage to use for Plants
Replies
5
Views
141
GrannyK
GrannyK
Back
Top Bottom