The Grammostola pulchra myth

[BrettG]

Good. Sweet. He just admitted it was a bad choice of words. Can this end now?........Talon:We received a pulchra sling from Tommy maybe 6 months ago,and it was maybe an inch in size. Now,its 2.5,and female. 78 degrees,fed every other day until premolt hits.We bought another that was maybe 2.5 inches at best,around the same time as we received the other pulchra,and that darn thing has not molted in out care yet.Same feeding schedule,same temps,etc.These just seem to be hit or miss as far as the "speed" of growth (in our expierences at least)

 

[TalonAWD]

I changed the first post. Edited to reflect the corrections to the word Mtyh being wrong.

 

[Nokturnal1980]

I'll put it this way..When I say my T is X big, i get asked how I did it. Than i say how i did it, and I get judged. But yet that person gave the wow factor and wanted to know what I did. I am informing. And I am not killing anything, In fact, I was even asked about my GBB sac, if faster growth had a negative side effect. I show that it does not.

Get over the choice of words i used. I basically show that I can pic a specimen and prove that it can grow quick. Now its up to the individual to use the info for good or bad.

Heres one good...Breeding purposes.

I'm skeptical that it was "proven" that there are no negative consequences to inducing such rapid growth. Yes, it was stated that your GBB produced one healthy sac as well as one infertile sac. However, since the tarantulas are not kept until death there is no record as to the average lifespans of tarantulas kept in these conditions. Moreover, success with one GBB does not mean that this growth rate is safe. One cannot make that assumption from a singular instance. It seems heavy handed to assume this would work for all species without regard to what conditions the tarantulas would experience in their natural habitats.

 

[patrick86]

The OP grew an LP from an inch to mature male in nine months? How long would they normally take to reach maturity, a couple years? You lost all the enjoyment of raising that spider to adulthood--for what? His entire life reduced to nine months. I would consider that a “negative consequence”. T probably did too.

You say any tarantula can grow fast if kept in "optimum conditions". I personally don’t consider temps on the extreme side and feeding as much as possible “optimum conditions”. Maybe you should preface your statements with “I believe”. Then we all know that’s your opinion and you're not stating a fact.

Good luck to your spiders.

 

[elportoed]

Speaking of the life span of a tarantula of a particular species, is there any published information out there that says how long the life expectancies of certain species are in the wild? How about any info on that for the captive ones?

Unless the information exists, how can we be certain that speeding the growth have any effect on the life span (shorten it as most people believe, except those of the males)?

 

[Nicole]

Thanks for posting this! I know that keeping warm and feeding lots has been said before to be a way to achieve faster growth, but it's really neat to actually see the whole process documented, even if your methods or wording aren't up to the standards of the "experts."

 

[Fran]

Thanks for posting this! I know that keeping warm and feeding lots has been said before to be a way to achieve faster growth, but it's really neat to actually see the whole process documented, even if your methods or wording aren't up to the standards of the "experts."

Actually he changed it, so as an expert, now I approve it.

 

[Nokturnal1980]

Speaking of the life span of a tarantula of a particular species, is there any published information out there that says how long the life expectancies of certain species are in the wild? How about any info on that for the captive ones?

Unless the information exists, how can we be certain that speeding the growth have any effect on the life span (shorten it as most people believe, except those of the males)?

Please refer to pages 105 to 107 of the revised edition of The Tarantula Keeper's Guide for information regarding the longevity of tarantulas. The authors also cite further resources for inquiring minds to peruse. Also, one might take a look at page 294 of the same edition where the author notes that inducing rapid growth in some African species can prevent males from reaching "significant size." In fact they recommend against the practice in some species.

If you do not have the revised edition, I can dig out my first edition as well.

 

[Terry D]

Another non-comparative contribution to the thread

Hey all, I'm gonna have to side with Talon AWD mostly on this one. Although lacking comparative data for the purists at heart, this was- after all, posted in tarantula chat. I know for a fact that I've seen several posts on this board where a reply, original post, or portion of the text stated that "pulchra ARE slow growers". Furthermore, often was the comment made without any comparison at that time. This comment has been slung like a cheap rug over and over! That, in my line of thinking, is the myth! Although he lacked any comparison, along the aforementioned lines, his well documented molt record does debunk that myth. Although many already know a t can be hurried along with higher temps and frequent feedings, there are quite a few that may not. I don't see any harm in the original post or wording thereof.

While you're at it take a look at "Terry D's photo thread". Scotty, Gp #1 and pictured first of the two, was 4-+" in that April photo. My female, #2 has since escaped and was slightly, but notably smaller at approx 3.75"-+. Scotty grew from .75" to ~4.25-?+" between Nov. 06 2009 and May 07 2010. I have since slowed his feedings and lowered temps. He has not eaten in a month now and does not appear to have grown any since last molt on 5-07-10. He often has refused for two weeks at a time since his May molt. My current 3 small slings are not being fed quite as frequently or kept as warm as the initial two but are currently 1.75-2" from .5" in late March. Sure, they are much slower in comparison to P ornata. Lacking comparison, which was never an intended component of the original post to begin with, they can still grow fairly quick. Terry

 

[Mister Internet]

Is this really this difficult? Everyone knows that you can speed up a tarantula's metabolism by powerfeeding it and jacking the temperature. "Slow Grower" is not a QUANTITATVE term, it is a QUALITATIVE term... meaning, all else being equal, they will ALWAYS grow slower than a "Fast Grower".

For example, a 3rd instar P. regalis and a 3rd instar G. pulchra are kept in TalonAWD's "ideal" conditions... the pulchra may well grow 2.5" in one year under such conditions, but the regalis will grow 5". So while it certainly grew MORE QUICKLY than it would have otherwise, compared to the regalis, it is still a "Slow Grower". Now apply that to a NORMAL hobbyist keeping their tarantulas under NORMAL conditions... the pulchra grows 2.5" in 3 years, and the regalis grows 5" in the same amount of time. SAME THING. The regalis is still the "Fast Grower", and the pulchra is still the "Slow Grower".

Why is this so difficult? The pulchra is not somehow a "fast grower" just because you got it to "grow fast"... it's completely artificial and needs to be taken in context. If you push a Toyota Yaris down a steep hill, it might go 120 MPH... that doesn't mean it's a "fast car", it just means that you artificially enabled it to "go faster". SAME THING. The terms are RELATIVE, and context is EVERYTHING here.

Interesting post, Talon, but the wording and posturing of the initial posts came off much more dismissive what is really going on here than I think you were intending. Pulchra is not a "fast grower". You just keep them in such highly artificial conditions that they "grow faster". Bit of a distinction there, wouldn't you say?

 

[Dexter]

I feel like when I keep mine warm and moist it grows ridiculously fast also.

 

[satanslilhelper]

Well, Mr. I just said that so much clearer than anyone else has.

 

[esotericman]

I'm going to cut and paste some information here, just to round out the topic.

>>>>>>>>
I will say that there is a well supported theory in biology that for every 10 degrees Celsius an organism is warmer (18F), you see a doubling of the physiological processes. Each 10 C reduced is then a halving of the same processes. There are limits, obviously, as stresses to temperature will interfere at the high and low ends. In general (=species dependent), there will be a difference between tarantulas kept at 72F and 90F.
>>>>>>>>

Of course that ignores species differences in physiology. At some point, cold stress or heat stress will cause major changes in cellular protein make up. Keeping a spider who's native habitat does not reach 97F, would more than likely put it under heat stress, and for that time period, the body would have stopped "growing" and switched to "survival" mode.

Now then, what the OP has demonstrated, is that for this species, excess food and "elevated" temperatures. Will result in "faster" growth than is normally experienced by other keepers.

OK, so power feeding and elevated temperatures worked on one species with a tiny sample size. To power feeding, this was written on another board regarding life span and rapid growth.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Some of the "grow fast and die fast" in biology comes from mitochondrial damage. It's the rage in pop culture to talk about antioxidants this and aging damage that. Much of that garbage comes from the hugely funded research in reduction-oxidation biology which is the new trend.

Basically it's like this (very over simplified), mitochondria are the "power house" of the cell. They are the organelles (sorta like small organs) in cells where cellular respiration occur (sugars + oxygen to carbon dioxide and water). The result of cellular respiration is ATP (google that one) which is the "energy currency" (no laughing please, I'm trying to explain this) used to drive everything in multicellular organisms. If the process goes really fast, just like in any machine, more mistakes happen, more waste occurs in a short time (red line your car for a hour, get back to me). So, by elevating the temperatures, and providing lots of sugar (glycogen in feeder insects), you red line your animals mitochondria. The repair systems (and they are there) can only do so much, and the system breaks down. Broken mitochondria means to cellular respiration leads to death. This is no different than most aging effects in humans...

So, sure, you can push 'em, push 'em hard. But the result is reduced life spans.

That being said... I have a G. pulchra which is 8 years old, and it's less than 2". Now then if I was hoping to breed, or get many more of a species in the hobby, would you use the original poster's method, or mine which involves room temperatures and 2-6 feedings per month?

As a PET keeper, I don't support "power feeding" or rapid growth models. As a biologist, I understand it. As someone who wants to reduce the stress and strain on wild populations, I can see the merit in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In any case, I can not fault anyone for sharing informational observations, even if they're old news, as Mr. Internet pointed out.

 

[Fran]

I fully agree with Mister I. He just pointed out that the wording was the key of the "problem". Nothing wrong with sharing info, but it should be presented right.

 

[cacoseraph]

this thread was a complete joke. the OP has some good info to offer with good evidence to back it up. some ppl felt the urge to crap all over that, for whatever reason.


can anyone deny that pulchra are typically considered amongst the slowest growers? i have talked to many ppl who are only looking for pulchra above a certain size threshold because they don't want to wait. a rough definition of myth is a belief not substantiated by fact but commonly held to be true. given that definition,this demonstration, and my experience in the hobby i see absolutely nothing wrong with the title

talon demonstrated it is not necessary to wait years and years to get a mature sized female in all cases.


the whole "they still don't grow as fast as X" thing was a complete gas. who cares!? we are not talking about other spiders here. we are talking about a species that most ppl consider a slow grower being demonstrated to grow to a ~mature size in less than two years. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT OTHER SPECIES WOULD DO IN THE SAME SITUATION.







as for the impacts of fast growing.... you have to choose what you want out of a spider. if you want to keep it around for a million years then slow grow it. have fun waiting 15 years to start contributing babies to the hobby. if that is what makes you happy, more power to you.

BUT... even if a "normal" grown pulchra takes 5-7 years to mature and lives to be 20 and a talon grown pulchra takes 2 years to mature and lives to be 12 consider this: talon could start making babies at 2 years. a pulchra eggsac should be in the 100-300 egg range. so... assuming one good sac in five years talon would have ~7 years left on his mother... but somewhere in the 1000-2000year range of cumulative life in all her babies. would i be willing to trade 7 years of spider life for more than 1000? abso-freaking-lutely!

not to mention he could keep himself in crickets two to three times as fast as a normal hobbyist. idk his situation but i am typically poor as dirt, so being able to cover bug costs by selling bugs is mighty useful to me

 

[xhexdx]

Andrew,

can anyone deny that pulchra are typically considered amongst the slowest growers?

Patrick and Christian can:

http://atshq.org/boards/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26222&sid=4760a40de70dfb7347abc910b19aa0ab

Christian has even posted in this thread.

The debate was never about how fast pulchra can grow - it was about falsely debunking a 'myth' that, after being questioned, Talon claimed was not the intent of this thread.

Re-read his original post that has been quoted by other members if you haven't already - he edited his original post after he was questioned.

As far as people crapping on the 'good intentions', please see the quote from Talon stating that his thread title was only an attention-grabber.

If you're posting with good intentions, you don't need to falsely lure people in.

 

[Fran]

I really dont see it. Really.

It was simply said that while the info is appreciated, the wording was completely wrong. He didnt proove anything the community didnt know about.
... I dont know why to get offended.

 

[cacoseraph]

i guess maybe i read more threads and talk to more ppl than you


it definitely is a hobby tenet that pulchra grow slow. i suppose if you *really* want i could search pwn you... but i just realized this thread is crapped up beyond usefulness (odd how seemingly so many threads get corrupted by so few...) so i don't really see any point.


yet another thread that could have been much more interesting and useful but utterly ruined by militant know it alls

 

[JC]

this thread was a complete joke. the OP has some good info to offer with good evidence to back it up. some ppl felt the urge to crap all over that, for whatever reason.

+1

So sad too. Shame on the people that always seem to applaud Joe's efforts when he enters into his 'web-trances'. You know, a simple "I wouldn't exactly call it a myth" would have sufficed. Now we have a thread focused mainly on the significance of an English word and it's usage.

Steve, great post. Thanks a lot for documenting and sharing. Your work, whether the title had the best choice of words or not, was much appreciated.

 

[Mister Internet]

the whole "they still don't grow as fast as X" thing was a complete gas. who cares!? we are not talking about other spiders here. we are talking about a species that most ppl consider a slow grower being demonstrated to grow to a ~mature size in less than two years. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT OTHER SPECIES WOULD DO IN THE SAME SITUATION.

Sure it does, the term "slow growing" only has any meaning at all in comparison to other species/specimens... it's a qualitative term completely based on context. In normal keeping conditions, pulchra grow quite slow. Read carefully... In. Normal. Conditions. That's all anyone was trying to point out. He is keeping them in VERY abnormal conditions compared to what the average hobbyist is willing/able to provide, therefore the "myth" that they grow slow is anything but "debunked".

Clarity is important. Correct information is important. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT HE'S LYING. He's just committed what's called in logic circles a "Category Error"... comparing two things from different categories to make definitive statements.

Look at it this way... if everyone in the world that ever kept a tarantula kept them at 100F and fed and watered them twice a day to compensate, guess what? Everyone would still think pulchra grow slow! Why? Because everyone's regalises, parahybanas, and geniculatas would be monstrous adults in the space of 6-8 months, and dear God, puchras would be know to reach adulthood SO SLOW because it took 1.5 years... see? Context is everything.

I LIKED his post. I thought it was AWESOME. I just felt compelled to point out that it did not do what he was trying to claim it did, which was debunk any standard knowledge on this species... puchra grow slower than almost all other species, regardless if you're keeping them in a cold basement or in a sauna. That cannot possibly change. If you WANT THEM TO GROW FASTER THAN THEY GROW FOR 99% OF HOBBYISTS THAT KEEP THEM "NORMALLY", then by all means, follow Talon's lead as he's seemed to have gotten it figured out!