Tortoise Trust wrote:
The hides/scrapes I am referring to are not "humid" Stuart. Measurements of such environments in the wild consistently place them in the range of 35-60% RH (max). The hides being recommended by proponents of the "humidity" theory should, according to them, be close to "100% RH at all times".
The key reasons I recommend providing suitable burrow/scrape microclimates are:
1) To prevent chronic dehydration via cutaneous evaporation and respiration;
2) To encourage natural behaviour cycles, including longer dormancy than is typical in captivity; this in turn tends to reduce the over-feeding often seen in captivity, and hence, contributes to better overall growth. This aspect has nothing directly to do with the level of RH available. [/i]
OK, but could it not be that a humid hide
accidentally, as it were, provides tortoises with
something like a hide or scrape, and a 100% humid hide would certainly achieve 1).
Could the addtition of a humid hide to what might otherwise be a rather sterile breeding set-up also accidentally achieve point 2) ? In other words, could the proponents of humid-hides be misconstruing the "success" of the latter as being due directly to the humidity (which doesn't seem to make sense physiologically), whereas in fact it is the resultant tortoise
behaviour which is having the beneficial effect as you have outlinedas being the importance of micro-climates generally?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing for humid-hides as such, although it's obvious that as a possible micro-climate for some species (redfoots, kinixys, stars etc) they'd be the right thing to offer. My son's two baby stars do seem to appreciate the extra humidity of such a provision, seeming to select that part of their table as and when. And they're growing smoothly. But he's very careful with their diet as well, so wouldn't be ready to attribute success to the humidity. Presumably a very humid hide wouldn't be the micro-climate of choice of other species, especially meds. (But would they be better than nothing, if they improved the habitat of a nursery enclosure and contributed to the avoidance of chronic dehydration, albeit being too humid, and also helped to promote the beneficial behaviour, especially feeding behaviour which you describe? - although feeding high-protein would presumably negate that?)
No, I'm only trying to see how the humid-hide advocates might, albeit unwittingly, be onto something, but have misinterpreted the humidity as the main factor, and maybe just got lucky (or
think they have) on the dietary front?
Stuart