Can we keep this article at the top for reference?

[runningguy]

Moderators:

Would you be willing to keep this article in the anouncements? This was posted by Quincy's Boo in the "Questions on Feeders" thread.

It was written by the Michigan State U zoology dept. It is the most complete study of nutrients in insects that I have found and it's good reading for all of the "is this healthy for my beardie?" threads.

http://nagonline.net/Technical Papers/NAGFS00397Insects-JONIFEB24,2002MODIFIED.pdf

 

[spyder79]

Thats really not an in depth listing of nutrient counts in insects. Not to mention they do not really touch on many actual feeder insects.

The beautiful dragons nutrition chart is far more indepth in the number of feeders that they cover and the info is the same as far as nutritional breakdown.
http://www.beautifuldragons.503xtreme.com/Nutrition.html

 

[runningguy]

I'm familiar with the Beautiful Dragons website. I see that chart posted on this website daily. I also have it listed on my computer, actually.

The paper that I listed is a very complete breakdown done by a lab at a major university by Phd instructors. I'm not sure where Veronica from Beautiful Dragons got her information. I'm not saying that Beautiful Dragons has incorrect information, but I don't know her methodology. How can her chart be far more indepth? I also don't know for sure that the information from MSU is correct either. But I think it is as good as anthing else we have and deserves more reading.

As far as the number of feeders, Veronica lists butterworms, hornworms, silkworms, and phoenix worms. The MSU paper does not. They do list some insects that you/we may not be currently feeding our beardies yet they might be healthy.

I find it interesting that this paper has information that directly contradicts some of the information that is given daily on this website, mostly regarding mealworms, waxworms, superworms, and earthworms. Also interesting is it seems universal on this website that waxworms are treats only, not daily feeders. Superworms, on the other hand can be daily feeders. Yet on Beautiful Dragons "care of live feeders" page, Veronica states that she prefers wax worms to supers. And certainly her website is held in high regard by the members here.

I could go to Petsmart, or the local pet store, and tell them that roaches (or phoenix worms, butterworms, silkworms, etc) are good feeders. And they would probably think I'm crazy because they haven't taken the time to really research beardies before selling them. They just repeat some dogma that they are told, or maintain a one-side position because they are trying to sell you what they have.

I have found alot of good information on this website, but in many ways it isn't much different than visiting the local petstore. Oh well.

 

[spyder79]

Lol well if you feel that way why arent you at your pet store asking questions instead of on here?

I gave you my standpoint on that writeup after reading it. I do not feel it covers enough feeders that are used in the bearded dragon world for it to be a sticky on a bearded dragon page. And though some people on here think supers should be a daily staple i do not due to their high fat to protein ratio. And no one is going to feed an american cockroach to their pet, unless that is they want their dragon to die, as the american cockroach is one of the most unclean insects around in regards to bacteria they carry and insecticides and chemicals they more than likely crawl through. If you got offended because i posted a comment that contradicts what you think so sorry maybe you should have pmd the link to a mod instead of posting it in the public if you cant take criticism.

 

[TheWolfmanTom]

After reading thru the article I found it to be just as interesting and informational as beautifuldragons.com.
Its just a different view of the same info in my opinion.
Thanks for putting it up.
One thing that we all need to remember is that there are many different ways to accomplish the same goal. This site I have found very informitive over the years and I would never leave it for the world. However as I grow in this hobby and industry I am learning that the information on any site is not the end all and be all. I will listen to anyone who presents info to me in a clear way. Doesnt matter if I agree with it or not. A man I am not fond of taught me a simple expression that I use to this day and if I ever see Him I will thank him for it because sometimes you dont know your being taught something till much later down the road.
The phrase went something like this.
" The day that i stop learning and teaching is the day that isnt worth living for."
Always teaching always learning. I find it an interesting concept.

 

[ChellyBeans]

You can never have too much information. He found the study and is trying to spread the wealth.

People like an option and a variety of different opinions and facts. It's just the way of life. Clearly beautifuldragons.com rubs most the right way, but give this one a chance. There is no reason to bash a man who is simply trying to help. Leave the deciding up to the viewer. Afterall, they will care for their dragon how they see fit.

 

[runningguy]

"Quincy's Boo" first posted this article so she should get the credit for finding it.

I certainly don't have all the answers but I thought it was intersting reading, that is all. One intersting point about the MSU paper is the fat content that they list for most feeders is much higher than in any other article or chart I have found. Obviously different testing methods give different results.

A few days ago "Fresnowhite" posted a comparison between roaches and crickets, but said that she couldn't find the Ca ratio for crickets. This paper has that. Ultimately, with anything you read there is the question of do you trust the source and whether or not this information is relevent to the discussion. I think this paper has both.

This paper is more than ten years old, so it would be nice to see an updated version with more "current" feeders.

 

[ChellyBeans]

Great post runningguy.

I just so happen to like this study also. I wish they would update it too.

 

[kevindeeley12]

lol come on guys keep it clean, no need to be a tough guy over the internet, the article is useful, no need to argue over it.

 

[spyder79]

After re-reading my posts I am still 100% certain that I was neither rude, demeaning, nor portraying a "tough guy" attitude towards the OP. I posted my opinion which is what this board is for. Weather you agree with or like my opinion is of no consequence to me, I still have the right to post it. And I stand behind my post.

 

[kevindeeley12]

I understand, but "i posted a comment that contradicts what you think so sorry maybe you should have pmd the link to a mod instead of posting it in the public if you cant take criticism." is definitely rude, just to let you know. Unless there is any new information posted in this thread, I will not be posting again. Good day, sir's.

 

[spyder79]

I understand, but "i posted a comment that contradicts what you think so sorry maybe you should have pmd the link to a mod instead of posting it in the public if you cant take criticism." is definitely rude, just to let you know. Unless there is any new information posted in this thread, I will not be posting again. Good day, sir's.

Um ok. We can just agree to disagree cause what you are calling rude i call the truth. :roll:

 

[ChellyBeans]

I just don't understand why there is so much attitude over a simple suggestion. He was asking the mods, not intending to get bashed for offering information.

Leave the guy alone. Seriously.

 

[kevindeeley12]

I agree

 

[spyder79]

Lol yeah ok. you shouldnt post something if you dont want opinions on it. i gave mine and you all have given yours. Last i checked i havent jumped on anyones case. I happen to know for a fact i was quite nice with my responses. Thanks for yalls input and criticisms though.