No one can possibly tell you if your heat situation is ok based on the number of fixtures or size of bulbs beings used as it really depends on a number of factors including the size of enclosure, (give us your actual dimensions) the type of enclosure and top, the type of substrate, the ambient air temperature of the room.......

If you want some reassurance that your temperatures are within range then tell us your actual temperatures throughout the enclosure and what you are using to read these temperatures.

Sure, play around with this site a bit: http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/runningbrook/729/index.htm

You will find in this study that only up to 1% of the diet was insects that were unintentionally ingested on the plant material consumed by the animal.

There is one species of uromastyx that is thought to intentionally consume insects as part of its diet but I am still trying to confirm the validity of this as I have heard varying stories and percentages all the way from 1% up to 6%. I do feel (from what I have read) that this one species may indeed eat a small percentage of insects as part of its diet. The tooth structure differs on this species from some of the other which I think may lend credibility to this. Once I have some concrete data, I will post the information.

I would really recommend that you have an opinion on the rearing of your animals. So many times, we often find that the way something has been handled by so many is incorrect. Some of these husbandry issues do not surface until years down the road so what we may be viewing as success today could end up being a nightmare several years in. A prime example of this was the argument that iguanas needed insects as part of their diet. Some argued that this was true of juvenile iguanas but not adults- some argued it was true for all iguanas. Years down the road, we come to find out that the insect logic on iguanas being passed from person to person was incorrect all together and this incorrect advice led to kidney problems and an early death for many of these animals. I now hear the same arguments for uromastyx.

In the early years I too would throw in a cricket or two once in awhile with my uromastyx. Then I started to question why an overwhelming majority of my animals would not look at the cricket while only a few would readily eat them. If they were indeed omnivores, I would think that the percentages would be reversed with the majority eating the insects. I think this was my first clue that these animals were not omnivores. Rather than conditioning my animals to eat insects by continuing to feed them, I started doing some of my own research. Some of the papers I found that listed uromastyx as herbivores gave detail for the conclusion such as the type of digestion and where it took place, colon valve partitions, jaw and tooth structure…ect. Then the four-year study conducted in the wild came out which concluded that at least two of these species were strictly herbivores.

Do you have a link specific to the malis? I know the animals are quite similar, but the diet may be different. I am not disagreeing but am trying to be as accurate in my husbandry as possible. I will stop the live food if it is confirmed there is a risk to the longevity of my malis.

I agree that the diet may differ among species but I do not think that it would be reasonable to assume that the type of classification (carnivore vs omnivore, vs herbivore) would necessarily change.

As far as I know- there has not been any field studies done specifically on mali. Given the fact that these animals live in relatively close proximity and are so similar in morphology and anatomical structure, I feel that if we had to draw our own conclusions -the odds might be that most species of uromastyx are in the same group (herbivore) as the two species studied. We can look around us and see this with many other reptiles. Regardless of species, I do not know of too many tortoises that are not herbivores, nor are there many chameleons that are not insectivores. While we cannot be completely certain of our conclusions, I think the odds might be in favor of most uromastyx being herbivores based on the field study, jaw and teeth structure, what we know about the digestive process as well as other characteristic specific to true herbivores. The point I was trying to get across in my last post is this-
I would much rather error on the side of caution and feed an omnivore a herbivore diet than to feed a herbivore an omnivore diet. Almost any veterinarian medical book will tell you the grave consequences of the latter.

Regarding your statement “I will stop the live food if it is confirmed there is a risk to the longevity of my malis.”

I find this logic similar to saying “I will stop giving my 12 month old jawbreakers when it is confirmed that there is a risk to his health.”

While we might not have any specific studies to show that jawbreakers resulted in the death of ‘x’ amount of 12 month olds, we could probably conclude from a variety of things that we have read and heard (that are indirectly related to this specific situation) that there is a significant possibility that injury might result.

If we have a strong suspicion (based on some credible data) that points in the direction that uromastyx are herbivores and we also have clinical data showing that feeding long term animal protein is detrimental to herbivores, and we know that there are plenty of other healthy diet alternatives available, why wait until the problem surfaces?

You can certainly feed all of the insects you want to your uromastyx until you have confirmation of the fact that it is a risk to do so. I learned a long time ago that there are people that are going to do what they want regardless of what I or anyone else says, the data or reasoning we supply, or the valid points that we make on a specific issue. My primary reason for replying to your statement: ” As adults only 5% of their food intake should be live” is that you are promoting something to others that many others and I feel could be detrimental to the health of these animals. What you do with your animal is fine but what you recommend to others should have support behind it or be stated as opinion without support. I have no problem listing the reasons I feel this statement is inaccurate and thus was curious to know why you are promoting this to others. This should not be taking as argumentative banter as most people will not have a problem giving reasons why they stand behind a particular husbandry issue they are recommending.
Unfortunately, the only reasons I usually hear for feeding insects to uromastyx is that #1 the uromastyx loves them and #2- they grow faster. This is certainly not factual support for the feeding of insects as far as I am concerned. Feeding a diet excessively high in meat protein to a two year old might result in a faster growth rate but is this necessarily good? A two year old may readily choose Skittles over peas and chicken but does that mean we should feed them a diet of Skittles because they happen to like the flavor and eat the skittles we give to them? (have detailed my thoughts on this under a number of posts including “man eating uromastyx”)

While so many seem to be focused positively on a fast growth rate, I am focused on NOT having a growth rate that greatly exceeds that of nature. I personally view this as a negative rather than a positive.

You asked about the lifespan of mali. I am not aware of a specific lifespan being documented for mali. There have been some documented cases of U aegyptia reaching 33 years (natural environment) and U acanthinura reaching 22 years in captivity. Both of these animals were still alive at the ages I just gave so we cannot assume that this is by any means a ‘max’. Because age information is limited, some experts have started to base longevity figures on sexual maturity- the animals that reach sexual maturity later in life will have correspondingly higher longevity. (this application is not specific for reptiles or uromastyx) Sexual maturity in U acanthinura is documented after 4-5 years, U aegyptia after 4-6 years. (compare with limited ages we have for these two animals above) I have nothing in writing on U Maliensis but have heard speculation that sexual maturity is reached in 3-4 years. Similar to the insect/diet issue, we have nothing concrete on mali regarding longevity but could take into consideration the data on the other species of uromastyx and come up with a somewhat educated ballpark conclusion. Alternatively, we can wait for confirmation on longevity specifically for mali, which may never come.

You write: "We have a UVB light on the side of the cage. The long strip light. We have it on the side of the cage instead of on the top. Is this ok? Or is it better to have the light on top?"

Forgive me if your generalizations are not taken as fact without question by me. This would be like you said clinging to old care sheets. You do seem very knowledgeable about your animals and I respect what you have to say. I have not given my malis live food since this discussion started as I have not confirmed either way which is the accurate husbandry practice. I was simply stating I was willing to stop the live food. I can see by the wording why you took it the way you did but I did not mean to say i will continue to feed the animals live food if I could not confirm the correct way to manage their diet. I am responsible for this as I used a poor choice of words.

I looked at the info I had, while it stated the 5%, it failed to provide a scientific reference. Clearly more scientific information is needed. I think it is clear these animals are primarily herbivorous. Since they accidentally ingest 1% live food, I would suspect their systems have developed to handle this amount of protein and may actually use it to their benefit. The info you provided gave a range of 1-6%. While this is not in reference to the mali, neither was the 1% that is based on the ornate.

Now uro-fan, you chastised me for my "opinion" which I think is inappropriate. You have an opinion based on some very good information but it is still an opinion until there is a study on the malis specifically. Uros are relatively new to the pet trade and therefore we are facing a steep learning curve. A analogy can be made here: Volkswagen Golfs are mostly 4 cylinders and they all look the same. They also are made in the same factory. Therefore they must all run on gas. Mine is diesel. Overgeneralizing can be as detrimental as under generalizing.

Please be clear, I am not advocating for the use of live food in uros. One could just as easily argue the 1% is not accidental and is part of their dietary requirements. Remember insects need water to reproduce. Maybe the lack of water results in a decrease in insect consumption due to lack of availability, not necessity. To be clear, this is a question, not a fact. The truth is we don’t know. What do the gut contents look like after a rainfall- 2-3 weeks later? Are there more bugs at this time? Maybe correct husbandry is occasional binging with the rest of the time primarily herbivorous. Again a question, not an opinion.

The digestive structure is compelling but the fact remains we don’t know if the small % of insects is beneficial or harmful or neutral. I am having a hard time seeing how a small amount of live food which is in the possible normal range of the amount consumed in the diet is considered irresponsible. You should be stating we are gathering information which questions the use of live food in these animals under captive conditions. Consider that the gut loading is the same diet they are fed in plant matter with sprinklings of multivitamins and calcium.

Not until your last post did I feel that you were.

>> Now uro-fan, you chastised me for my "opinion" which I think is inappropriate.

I fail to see where I chastised you for your opinion. I certainly pointed out my opposition to your statement to others that uromastyx ‘should’ be fed 5% insects as this was not stated as opinion at all and I personally thought it should be. I also pointed out what I felt was flimsy logic with your statement that you would stop a questionable practice when it was confirmed that it was a risk. The analogy that I gave was not to ‘chastise’ but to help you see how I viewed your logic on stopping a practice that was ‘probably’ a health risk but not absolutely black and white. (you have since cleared up your intent)

>> You have an opinion based on some very good information but it is still an opinion until there is a study on the malis specifically.

Yes, and I state my opinion as opinion and use information, facts, and experience to form those opinions. I also try to provide the information I use for my conclusions when stating my opinion to others. If we agree that neither of us are aware of any studies specifically on the diet of mali, isn’t everything an opinion or personal conclusion? Wouldn’t opinions and conclusions rooted in fact and closely related data be better than something read off a care sheet with no supporting data?

>> The truth here is I don’t see your generalizations as fact. There is a good probability you are correct, but don’t mislead others with words like fact.

Please do me a favor and point out where I have listed something as fact when it was not fact. Show me where I did not use words such as “in my opinion, research shows, I believe, I do not think, I personally….

>> I have read elsewhere info that is stating the animals eat about 5% live food in the wild. If this were true, would not holding back on the live food be unnatural?

Yes it would be unnatural if it were true, but there is not credible data to show that this statement is true and there is credible research (field studies) to show that it is incorrect for at least two species.

>> Although they are related, it is possible the animals need something different. This would be like saying all bearded dragons need the same diet and humidity because they come from the same area and are physically very similar. Yet, the smaller species eat a much larger percentage of live food than the vitticeps, which would be unhealthy if the same diet were eaten.

Did I not clearly state: “I AGREE THAT THE DIET MAY DIFFER AMONG SPECIES but I do not think that it would be reasonable to assume that the TYPE of classification (carnivore vs omnivore, vs herbivore) would necessarily change.” You are actually supporting my statement that diet may differ and are showing it with an example of how ‘much’ insect is consumed by two omnivorous animals- not two different classifications such as omnivore vs herbivore as mentioned in my statement.

>> Forgive me if your generalizations are not taken as fact without question by me.

No one was asking you to take my generalizations as fact. As I said prior- “I learned a long time ago that there are people that are going to do what they want regardless of what I or anyone else says, the data or reasoning we supply, or the valid points that we make on a specific issue.” This statement was made specifically to show that I was not expecting you to take anything. I do want to add that I believe that your use of the word ‘generalization’ is inaccurate when it comes to my posts in this thread. While I certainly can draw some conclusions based on experience and data, I do not think that I oversimplify anything- most people would argue that I give too many details.

>>but it is still an opinion until there is a study on the malis specifically. Uros are relatively new to the pet trade and therefore we are facing a steep learning curve.

Again, I clearly structure my statements as opinions based on research and facts that indirectly and directly (such as anatomical structure) relate to mali uromastyx. From this research and data I am drawing some very probable conclusions (most of which I believe you admit to agreeing with) and do not believe that I have misstated my conclusions as fact. Also keep in mind that some of my opinions ‘are’ based on facts such as experience with dozens of uromastyx (incl mali) and the relatively low acceptance of insects by these animals. I also consider the long-term field study as fact regarding the only true diet data we have on this genus. I have not gone into detail on others data used for my conclusion that uromastyx are most likely herbivore such as the length of intestine, higher core body temperature, the traverse folds and valves in a uromastyx colon ...and quite a few other characteristics related to true herbivores. You are correct that uromastyx are relatively new (about nine years now) to this hobby but with the large number of animals traded in the last four years, we probably have more captive history on mali (excluding long term) than most other species right now. Too bad we do not correlate that data.

>>An analogy can be made here: Volkswagen Golfs are mostly 4 cylinders and they all look the same. They also are made in the same factory. Therefore they must all run on gas. Mine is diesel. Overgeneralizing can be as detrimental as under generalizing.

I believe that reasonable conclusions can be drawn by most reasonable people given enough data. For example, I personally would not have come to the conclusions that all golfs run on gas. However, knowing what I know about ‘all’ automobiles (not just golfs), engineering, physics, and mechanics I would have come to the conclusion that all golf’s run on an energy source of some sort be it gas, diesel, solar, electricity. In fact, I would probably have felt relatively safe in my assumption without ever seeing a golf or any data on that specific vehicle.

>>One could just as easily argue the 1% is not accidental and is part of their dietary requirements. Remember insects need water to reproduce. Maybe the lack of water results in a decrease in insect consumption due to lack of availability, not necessity. To be clear, this is a question, not a fact. The truth is we don’t know. What do the gut contents look like after a rainfall- 2-3 weeks later? Are there more bugs at this time? Maybe correct husbandry is occasional binging with the rest of the time primarily herbivorous. Again a question, not an opinion.

I have had ongoing correspondence for over a year now with the person who conducted this long-term study so I can answer some of these questions if you would like. The amount of insect material found in the feces did not appear to change between seasons or from year to year. I asked some very specific questions on insects load and will try to dig up the exact information I received back if you are interested. Prior to asking these questions I could have assumed that the insect load increases greatly during the rainy season or very possibly that 1% was a high figure obtained during the rainy season and normal insect consumption is closer to zero. Rather than blindly guess, I tend to search out data until I have enough facts to draw those reasonably sound conclusions that you seem to have a problem with.

>>The digestive structure is compelling but the fact remains we don’t know if the small % of insects is beneficial or harmful or neutral. I am having a hard time seeing how a small amount of live food which is in the possible normal range of the amount consumed in the diet is considered irresponsible.

I am confused. Where did this debate surface in our posts? Did I state somewhere that a ‘small’ percentage of insects is or is not beneficial, harmful, or neutral? Did I say that feeding a ‘small’ amount of insects is irresponsible? I clearly made these statements regarding insects:

“Feeding long term animal protein is detrimental to herbivores”
“My primary reason for replying to your statement: “As adults only 5% of their food intake ‘should’ be live” is that you are promoting something to others that many others and I feel could be detrimental to the health of these animals”
“I personally do not believe that 5% of a uromastyx diet ’should’ be live.”

A few conclusions can be drawn from my statements- long-term animal protein is detrimental to herbivores (fact) I personally do not believe that 5% of a uromastyx diet ‘should’ be live, (opinion) and that I believe that promoting a diet of 5% protein to others ‘could’ be detrimental (opinion).
Nowhere did I get into the debate on whether a ‘small’ amount of animal protein is beneficial, harmful, or neutral. I will however now state that I personally feel that a 5% insect load is not a small amount when it comes to the majority of uromastyx which I feel are most likely herbivore.

Just curious, did you happen to see this comment that I made in the thread:

“As I have mentioned in previous posts, up to 1% of the diet contains animal protein so we can probably assume that an insect or two here or there will not be detrimental to the health of a uromastyx. At the same time, I personally would not recommend feeding insects on a regular basis or choosing a percentage of insects as part of a uromastyx diet.”

Here are a few more comments that I have made on this forum and on KS as you do not seem to be aware of my stance on the issue:

’I’ certainly cannot say what is best- I do not know if anyone could at this point.” (this was regarding whether or not to feed small amounts of protein)
“I want to makes sure that everyone understands that I am not 100% anti- insect. If 1% of a uromastyx diet in the wild is made up of animal protein (even if not intentionally ingested), then I believe that a small amount of animal protein in captivity is ok. My stance is on frequency and amount not on whether or not insects should be provided.”
”In my opinion- long-term studies on a uromastyx diet in captivity with control groups is one way that I believe this can be determined. Again, long term. Just because a uro gains weight twice as fast in the first few years because it is fed insects does not convince me that this is what is ’best’. What if a long-term study with control groups showed that those fed insects grew at a much faster rate but had a lifespan that was 15-20 years shorter than those that were not fed insects? ’Best’ may not always be what it appears.
Again, just my opinion.”

What surprises me here Willie is that you are so careful to question conclusions based on data from an animal from the same genus and from anatomical structure of the animal in question and yet your original opinion on feeding insects was willingly based on statements that contained no scientific research to back it or even from research on related species in the same genus. You saw something once or twice in print without credible backing and decided to pass that information (which you are now questioning) on to others. How is this resource different from a generalization or opinion? At least my opinions and personal conclusions are stated as such and you usually get my reasoning and data for backing.

Even if we do not have any specific research on the actual diet of mali in their natural habitat, we still need to make decisions on diet once we take on the responsibility of keeping these animals. There is no way around this fact. Without factual data specifically on mali, what better way to form a conclusions than with scientific data on animals of the same genus with similar morphology and physical characteristics? Keep in mind that when I speak of ‘similar’ I am talking specific anatomical structure and processes that point toward herbivores- not similar in they all have spiny tails.

Experience certainly needs to be taken into consideration but one needs to be careful when evaluating that experience. Because an animal can form habits based on our repeated husbandry behavior, experience alone (such as the willingness to consume insects) should not be the sole basis (or even primary) for something as important as whether an animal is a herbivore or omnivore.

Please do not twist my words. I did not make the statement that the diet of uromastyx species do not differ, I merely stated that many might conclude that the classification (herb, omni, carn) is likely the same in most species due to herbivore related anatomy, similar digestion, and a 4 your field study on two species showing no intentional consumption of insects. I also clearly stated that it was my opinion that promoting a diet with a specific amount of live material ‘could’ be detrimental to uromastyx, and last but not least if we are unsure of something than it is better to error on the side of caution especially if we know that it is not a life threatening action we are taking but the alternative could be.