mealworms interesing info .pdf

[grboxa]

http://www.geckodan.com/articles/Pros and Cons of Mealworms.pdf


so I was sent this .pdf on the topic of meal worms and thought it was interesting, especially the part of substrates being used for meal worms. It is a interesting read with interesting info in my opinion for those who want to read. I posted this just to get some opinions and thoughts if any from members on what this person was stating, not to start any kind of feeder debate or to 'bash' meal worms:main_thumbsup:

 

[verogold]

Thank you so much for sharing. Just gives me one more reason not to feed mealworms. This is very helpful information.

 

[Rurso01]

While thats good and all, the numbers provided should be tested after properly gut loading and atleast attempting to dust. Most foods provided by gecko owners aren't fully nutritious entirely but thats why we all spend so much money on MV'S, calcium with and without d3 and gut loading with fruits and veggies. I find that the exoskeleton and low meat content to be the bigger downsides to mealworms but thats just me. Luckily my phoenix worms arrived so hopefully the mealworms will play a lesser role in our leo's diet... But of course it seems every feeder other than roaches seem to have several downsides to them.

Superworms have a thick exoskeleton and have been known to bite while being eaten.
Giant mealworms are chemically enhanced and still have the exoskeleton
While phoenix worms are known to have virtually perfect ca : p balance, they have also been known to either be fully rejected by leopard geckos, or not fully digested when they poop.
Crickets have a thick shell and the barbed legs and as shown also lack the natural nutrition.

My point is, no single feeder other than roaches it seems, is set to feed without fattening them up and dusting before feeding.

Very well researched and it's all accurate but should it scare people from mealworms as a decent part of the leo's diet? I'd think no but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[grboxa]

While thats good and all, the numbers provided should be tested after properly gut loading and atleast attempting to dust. Most foods provided by gecko owners aren't fully nutritious entirely but thats why we all spend so much money on MV'S, calcium with and without d3 and gut loading with fruits and veggies. I find that the exoskeleton and low meat content to be the bigger downsides to mealworms but thats just me. Luckily my phoenix worms arrived so hopefully the mealworms will play a lesser role in our leo's diet... But of course it seems every feeder other than roaches seem to have several downsides to them.

Superworms have a thick exoskeleton and have been known to bite while being eaten.
Giant mealworms are chemically enhanced and still have the exoskeleton
While phoenix worms are known to have virtually perfect ca : p balance, they have also been known to either be fully rejected by leopard geckos, or not fully digested when they poop.
Crickets have a thick shell and the barbed legs and as shown also lack the natural nutrition.

My point is, no single feeder other than roaches it seems, is set to feed without fattening them up and dusting before feeding.

Very well researched and it's all accurate but should it scare people from mea lworms as a decent part of the leo's diet? I'd think no but correct me if I'm wrong.

That is why I really found this part interesting and wanted to share with others who arent as knowledgeable like me " Phytic acid or cereal phytates are concentrated in the aleurone layer of the seed coat of all cereal grains. This is third outermost layer of the seed coat (2nd is the testa, 1st is the pericarp). These three layer are what makes up the product we know as bran once processed. Cereal phytates have the property of being able to immobilise dietary calcium and magnesium i.e the phytates bind to calcium and magnesium and form insoluble complexes that are not readily absorbed. Calcium is therefore not removed from the reptiles body BUT it is prevented from entering the reptiles body in the first place. "


To add with roaches, silkworms add great weight without the fat content and are tremendously packed with nutrition. Crickets also contain good source of calcium:main_thumbsup:

 

[verogold]

While thats good and all, the numbers provided should be tested after properly gut loading and atleast attempting to dust. Most foods provided by gecko owners aren't fully nutritious entirely but thats why we all spend so much money on MV'S, calcium with and without d3 and gut loading with fruits and veggies. I find that the exoskeleton and low meat content to be the bigger downsides to mealworms but thats just me. Luckily my phoenix worms arrived so hopefully the mealworms will play a lesser role in our leo's diet... But of course it seems every feeder other than roaches seem to have several downsides to them.

Superworms have a thick exoskeleton and have been known to bite while being eaten.
Giant mealworms are chemically enhanced and still have the exoskeleton
While phoenix worms are known to have virtually perfect ca : p balance, they have also been known to either be fully rejected by leopard geckos, or not fully digested when they poop.
Crickets have a thick shell and the barbed legs and as shown also lack the natural nutrition.

My point is, no single feeder other than roaches it seems, is set to feed without fattening them up and dusting before feeding.

Very well researched and it's all accurate but should it scare people from mealworms as a decent part of the leo's diet? I'd think no but correct me if I'm wrong.

Crickets have a thick shell? not to my knowledge. They are fairly nutritious once gutloaded and low in fat unlike the mealworms and superworms. Silkworms are excellent in every aspect. I am very cautious of fat content and so my geckos diet consist of crickets, silkworms and roaches. I have tried phoenix worms but with no success.

 

[grboxa]

Agreed, the crickets shell isn't thick in comparison and to add, retain water well to carry on over to your gecko which can be beneficial especially if dehydrated:main_thumbsup:

 

[Rurso01]

I guess I should've clarified. The shell isn't so thick but their back, thorax and legs are extra obstacles to digest similarly to the exoskeleton. My point is just that nearly every option has downsides. If you wanted to you could pick out any feeder and find negatives im sure

 

[grboxa]

exactly:main_thumbsup:. that's why variety is best.