...........................Now that is a great question Gregg :main_thumbsup:. I know im looking foward to reading some of the answers given.
Last edited:
What's the best sand to use?
- Thread starter Lickin
- Start date
Tony C
Wayward Frogger
- Messages
- 3,899
- Location
- Columbia, SC
Good advice...
wow this thread has turned to what I expected but not what I was hopping for. I'm not even sure I should say what sand I'm going to try, and watch very closely. I have also designed a second level that I am going to use rep carpet on for a feeding area. Plus I just got a 3rd Leo that may turn out to be a high tang from my pet store. Can't wait to see what he keeps as he grows. I have learned a ton from every one on here. I am just going to trial and hopefully not ere with my oldest. I'll let everyone know how things turn out and will post pics at some point.
mindgamer8907
New Member
- Messages
- 144
Hi everyone, this is a great debate I guess I'll chime in again.
So in response to Gregg and co. (the pro sanders ), what would keep the sand in the digestive tract is the same thing that would keep say an undigested bit of chitin in an animal: size/shape/chem breakdown. I went over the chemistry some more with my friend who proctors the chem labs here and he promised he'd run a test for me and record the data so I can share it. Hopefully, that will be soon. Essentially what we expect will happen if the sand reacts with the acid (same types as present in an animal's stomach) is that a separate silicate will form, along with water molecules. In the stomach of the animal these granules could connect their crystalline structure (as they react in an inorganic dehydration reaction of the mineral) to form a larger grain of sand. Especially under the pressure and the confines of the body, as this is pushed against an internal valve say at the later end of the stomach or the intestines (contracting ring of muscle that only widens a specific amount, and "O" ring). It doesn't have to stay in the stomach, if the stomach has processed it enough, the body may push it into the intestines to remove any further acid and moisture along with the remaining nutrients. It may even be here that the concretion would take place.
Or it may be that the concretion is mostly stopped and the pieces are mostly manageable if the reaction takes place. Even if it did not you would still have wet sand, and wet sand is a great substance for being a sticky, clumpy mess as/when it drys, say in the moisture/nutrient extracting intestines (after the stomach). I expect that Stack's pics were just wet sand and not what I have described as you can see the granulation fairly well.
As I am not a vet, I don't know, but the pictures posted by Stack show a different story. This made me curious, what type of sand was that gecko on and what was the full report on the animal's COD, and pre death condition.
Sorry for the tangential question.
I won't say that this is a definitive prediction and that it WILL happen every time. It will not. However, as I said in my previous post (the really long one) the body is prone to make mistakes of its own. Now say that what normally keeps the stomach from allowing this concretion or clumping is the movement of the stomach to crush/grind up food. It won't do it perfectly every time. Even the healthiest animal's body is subject to inconsistency now and again, and that is what I fear. Even if my animal is able to process the sand 100% of the time due to the processes of the body (the stomach's motions is merely a guess, but all biological systems fail some time it's really just a matter of having some sort of an opportunity to express the failure, or you may never know that the body failed. Even if you are in the opportunistic situation, and the element of say... infection is there your body may not become infected but there's no reason it couldn't, as long as the opportunity and the element are there it remains a chance.
The "impending doom of impaction" isn't what makes me keep my animals off of sand and I agree that those who say it will happen as though they were told so by his noodley appendage should stop, that is as much a misrepresentation as saying it is impossible, is let's get over it. The truth is sand isn't necessarily as likely to impact as people say it is, but denying outright that sand is never ever the cause is a step too far. Sometimes a the human body digests things in a strange way too (I know it's a shame I'm sounding like the digestive system is this great mystery, I don't mean to), I mean hasn't anyone else been constipated by something their body was supposed to eat? Perhaps it's just the INCONSISTANCY OF THE BODY, doing things like letting new bacteria in, or moving the food through the stomach too fast so it doesn't move as fast through the colon. Perhaps the person ate something that should have gone through the colon and intestines fine but got stuck somehow and infected the colon. I know some people get diarhea from stress and others get constipated and still others get ulcers. Suffice to say that things happen.
On my end, allowing for the possibility, allows that putting my gecko on that substrate with other options present is not a choice I'd like to make. Impaction doesn't have to be an imperative for me to take my animals off sand.
Additionally, I'd like to defend the other end of the evolutionary argument. Yes, I'll say that the gecko's probably live in the presence of sand, how much I cannot be sure. I'll take the word of those who have been there and they say: sandy. No, I do not think they would have survived as long as they have or evolved to live as they have without at least a decent modicum of tolerance for sand in their diet. My point is, that chances are, as any biologist or ecologist knows, even an animal that has evolved to deal with something in the wild can be killed by it. The factor that kills the animal does not have to be grouped with anything, biology and evolution fail. Natural selection is the process by which the "weakest" of the species (which is to say they are in some way ill equipped, though they can be otherwise strong) are culled by nature, for any single reason or combination thereof or even because they are merely unlucky. If you argue that you've never seen a leo in the wild with a sand impaction, neither have I. Even if you went scouting leos where they live (which I've been reassured by nearly everyone is the middle east) the region is infamous for predatory/scavanging birds and animals. The chance is that such an animal is a rarity to begin with and that even with this occurring rarity I've been told that leos are difficult to find/capture in the wild. All factors considered, it would be more of a rarity to find one dead/injured with that specific malady.
The point is, evolution did not make these animals eight feet tall and spouting tentacles from their mouths so that they may eat all living beings in sight which I'm pretty sure would be an evolutionary improvement (lol couldn't refuse the absurdity), they aren't even very formidable animals towards their predators are they? It doesn't seem so, though I may be wrong (really that part I'm making a guess), really evolution doesn't make animals perfect, even for their environment, it just makes them much better than an animal foreign to such. I very much enjoy this debate though we may consider taking it elsewhere. Perhaps another thread?
So in response to Gregg and co. (the pro sanders ), what would keep the sand in the digestive tract is the same thing that would keep say an undigested bit of chitin in an animal: size/shape/chem breakdown. I went over the chemistry some more with my friend who proctors the chem labs here and he promised he'd run a test for me and record the data so I can share it. Hopefully, that will be soon. Essentially what we expect will happen if the sand reacts with the acid (same types as present in an animal's stomach) is that a separate silicate will form, along with water molecules. In the stomach of the animal these granules could connect their crystalline structure (as they react in an inorganic dehydration reaction of the mineral) to form a larger grain of sand. Especially under the pressure and the confines of the body, as this is pushed against an internal valve say at the later end of the stomach or the intestines (contracting ring of muscle that only widens a specific amount, and "O" ring). It doesn't have to stay in the stomach, if the stomach has processed it enough, the body may push it into the intestines to remove any further acid and moisture along with the remaining nutrients. It may even be here that the concretion would take place.
Or it may be that the concretion is mostly stopped and the pieces are mostly manageable if the reaction takes place. Even if it did not you would still have wet sand, and wet sand is a great substance for being a sticky, clumpy mess as/when it drys, say in the moisture/nutrient extracting intestines (after the stomach). I expect that Stack's pics were just wet sand and not what I have described as you can see the granulation fairly well.
As I am not a vet, I don't know, but the pictures posted by Stack show a different story. This made me curious, what type of sand was that gecko on and what was the full report on the animal's COD, and pre death condition.
Sorry for the tangential question.
I won't say that this is a definitive prediction and that it WILL happen every time. It will not. However, as I said in my previous post (the really long one) the body is prone to make mistakes of its own. Now say that what normally keeps the stomach from allowing this concretion or clumping is the movement of the stomach to crush/grind up food. It won't do it perfectly every time. Even the healthiest animal's body is subject to inconsistency now and again, and that is what I fear. Even if my animal is able to process the sand 100% of the time due to the processes of the body (the stomach's motions is merely a guess, but all biological systems fail some time it's really just a matter of having some sort of an opportunity to express the failure, or you may never know that the body failed. Even if you are in the opportunistic situation, and the element of say... infection is there your body may not become infected but there's no reason it couldn't, as long as the opportunity and the element are there it remains a chance.
The "impending doom of impaction" isn't what makes me keep my animals off of sand and I agree that those who say it will happen as though they were told so by his noodley appendage should stop, that is as much a misrepresentation as saying it is impossible, is let's get over it. The truth is sand isn't necessarily as likely to impact as people say it is, but denying outright that sand is never ever the cause is a step too far. Sometimes a the human body digests things in a strange way too (I know it's a shame I'm sounding like the digestive system is this great mystery, I don't mean to), I mean hasn't anyone else been constipated by something their body was supposed to eat? Perhaps it's just the INCONSISTANCY OF THE BODY, doing things like letting new bacteria in, or moving the food through the stomach too fast so it doesn't move as fast through the colon. Perhaps the person ate something that should have gone through the colon and intestines fine but got stuck somehow and infected the colon. I know some people get diarhea from stress and others get constipated and still others get ulcers. Suffice to say that things happen.
On my end, allowing for the possibility, allows that putting my gecko on that substrate with other options present is not a choice I'd like to make. Impaction doesn't have to be an imperative for me to take my animals off sand.
Additionally, I'd like to defend the other end of the evolutionary argument. Yes, I'll say that the gecko's probably live in the presence of sand, how much I cannot be sure. I'll take the word of those who have been there and they say: sandy. No, I do not think they would have survived as long as they have or evolved to live as they have without at least a decent modicum of tolerance for sand in their diet. My point is, that chances are, as any biologist or ecologist knows, even an animal that has evolved to deal with something in the wild can be killed by it. The factor that kills the animal does not have to be grouped with anything, biology and evolution fail. Natural selection is the process by which the "weakest" of the species (which is to say they are in some way ill equipped, though they can be otherwise strong) are culled by nature, for any single reason or combination thereof or even because they are merely unlucky. If you argue that you've never seen a leo in the wild with a sand impaction, neither have I. Even if you went scouting leos where they live (which I've been reassured by nearly everyone is the middle east) the region is infamous for predatory/scavanging birds and animals. The chance is that such an animal is a rarity to begin with and that even with this occurring rarity I've been told that leos are difficult to find/capture in the wild. All factors considered, it would be more of a rarity to find one dead/injured with that specific malady.
The point is, evolution did not make these animals eight feet tall and spouting tentacles from their mouths so that they may eat all living beings in sight which I'm pretty sure would be an evolutionary improvement (lol couldn't refuse the absurdity), they aren't even very formidable animals towards their predators are they? It doesn't seem so, though I may be wrong (really that part I'm making a guess), really evolution doesn't make animals perfect, even for their environment, it just makes them much better than an animal foreign to such. I very much enjoy this debate though we may consider taking it elsewhere. Perhaps another thread?
Khrysty
New Member
- Messages
- 2,650
- Location
- Oregon, IL
I'm not sure most people will get the FSM reference here. A tad unnecessary. Good points nonetheless
Last edited:
Tony C
Wayward Frogger
- Messages
- 3,899
- Location
- Columbia, SC
Thank you for providing a rational, fact-based argument for your position rather than simply parroting "sand is the devil" dogma. :main_thumbsup:
mindgamer8907
New Member
- Messages
- 144
Any time Tony, I appreciate the... appreciation. lol I always enjoy a good debate.
Whitey
New Member
- Messages
- 333
- Location
- Navarre, FL
But.... sand is the devil.... momma said so
Tony C
Wayward Frogger
- Messages
- 3,899
- Location
- Columbia, SC
Tony C
Wayward Frogger
- Messages
- 3,899
- Location
- Columbia, SC
What kind of pressure is necessary for such a reaction? I wouldn't think that an animal's digestive system generates enough to change the crystalline structure, but I'm curious to see what the experiment shows.
One of the pictures was captioned: "The intestinal contents contained a sand marketed as "digestable" for reptiles.", implying that it was a calci-sand of some sort, which I think we all agree is not a suitable substrate.
Again, I appreciate the moderate tone of your assertions. Preaching dogma and refusing to consider any other possibility doesn't help anyone, and FSM references are always hilarious.
mindgamer8907
New Member
- Messages
- 144
My mistake, I did make it sound as if the gecko was under the pressure of the earth's crust. What I mean is that in any reaction like this a small amount of the outer crystals are very likely to form a semi-liquid and semi-solid before resolidifying into a modified crystal structure. Our estimation goes that even at standard 1 atm (atmospheric pressure) this reaction could happen fairly quickly, 2-15 seconds, introduce any confinement from the stomach or intestines and an increase in pressure and this reaction is likely to speed up. In essence, it'd be something like taking "dippin dots" icecream and letting them warm up a little bit, so they just barely become maleable, and pressing on them with your spoon a bit, then refreezing them. Instead of getting one big piece of homogeneous ice cream, you get the "dots" stuck together and the crystalline structure, though relatively weak compared to the standard, is still strong enough that one would have a hard time pulling out the original pieces. It is only a rough analogy, but it works for this because in both cases the crystaline structure is formed under different circumstances.
I thought that's what the picture caption meant, but I wasn't entirely sure because of the coloration of the grains and the fact that, in the aisle where they have the feeders (and baby leos) they have a "digestible" non-calci, non-vita, "pet sand" at one of the chains local to my school. I was curious if it may be something similar, but doubted it as the coloration is easily dismissed as the brand or what have you.
Who doesn't appreciate a little FSM, the whole idea of dogma is actually what got me thinking of it. I wanted to add something that would invoke Him without being choosy, and who disdains his great marinara coated word? lol
I thought that's what the picture caption meant, but I wasn't entirely sure because of the coloration of the grains and the fact that, in the aisle where they have the feeders (and baby leos) they have a "digestible" non-calci, non-vita, "pet sand" at one of the chains local to my school. I was curious if it may be something similar, but doubted it as the coloration is easily dismissed as the brand or what have you.
Who doesn't appreciate a little FSM, the whole idea of dogma is actually what got me thinking of it. I wanted to add something that would invoke Him without being choosy, and who disdains his great marinara coated word? lol
Visit our friends
