# The Grammostola pulchra myth



## TalonAWD (Aug 24, 2010)

*How I made my Grammostola pulchra grow quick*

*NOTE: I am editing this first post due to the wording being misleading. Thread is not about a Myth. Rather its about how I got my Grammostola pulchra to grow rather quicky and the methods I use to achieve this. Many would like a nice big black spider and if this is you read on.
Thank you.*


Since its almost officially a year, I wanted to write this. 

The G. pulchra has gotten really popular in the past year. And I have read many threads where they state the pulchra is a slow grower. Some even want to get large ones just so they dont have to wait the so called "Long Time" to see the gorgeous black coloration. I have gotten many PM's asking how I get them to grow quick as well. Well now that I have some documented proof for the past year of owning one of these beauties, I feel I should educate with proof with this species. 

After seeing this hopefully many will now see that  If presented with optimum circumstances, you will get optimum results. And by optimum I mean really warm temps and plenty of food. (All my T's has this luxury)

Our journey takes us to when I bought my G. pulchra as a 1" specimen (along with 2 others) on September 1st 2009. We will concentrate on just "Elvira"







Molt that proves she was only 1"







And here she is Today with the last molt of a one year period.







Heres her molt schedule to date.
*Received 09-01-09 1"
Molted 09-07-09 
Molted 10-10-09 Sexed Female with Microscope
Molted 11-14-09 
Molted 12-29-09 
Molted 05-9-10 
Molted 06-25-10 
Molted 08-24-10*

Now I cant disturb her to get the official size but I'm going to improvise. Here is a picture of her molt before this current molt. 4" legspan







And heres her most current molt size. (Today) 4.75" legspan (Ball point pen for size reference as well)







Now using those two molts I see she grew .75" SoI will automatically say that she is now about .75" bigger than the last molt currently which makes her 5.5" legspan.

*She grew to 5.5" in just one year!!!*

Hopefully this will show others that the G. pulchra can grow quick . Its that the conditions they are living in represent their growth rate. This holds true for many species and not just the G. pulchra. I chose this species to show this due to its popularity in the past year.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (Aug 24, 2010)

This is awesome! I'm glad you're breakin' chains and gettin' the word out! What an amazing species. Thanks so much for being so diligent with your records.


----------



## OldHag (Aug 24, 2010)

I have a female that didnt grow that fast.  She took about 2.5 yrs to get 5".
I think it depends on the T and the feeding schedule. Just like people, some grow fast, some slow.
I also have a B. emilia that I got back in 2004 at .5 It is now a grand 1.5".... go figure.. I feed her just the same as my other T's. Just... shes a slow grower.  She only molts about once a year now...have no idea whats going on with her.


----------



## MichiganReptiles (Aug 24, 2010)

Thank you for that documentation. I'm glad to see the rapid size difference in just a year.


----------



## Anubis77 (Aug 24, 2010)

I remember reading another thread about a G. pulchra who grew to adult size in 3 years. Astonished me then, but now it seems Grammostola aren't particularly slow growers in some cases. All of mine are (my 2" male G. pulchra is 3 years old), but the reason's obvious.

Good documentation.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 24, 2010)

OldHag said:


> I have a female that didnt grow that fast.  She took about 2.5 yrs to get 5".
> I think it depends on the T and the feeding schedule. Just like people, some grow fast, some slow.
> I also have a B. emilia that I got back in 2004 at .5 It is now a grand 1.5".... go figure.. I feed her just the same as my other T's. Just... shes a slow grower.  She only molts about once a year now...have no idea whats going on with her.


85F temps and plenty of food is the big secret. No matter what species I have owned, they all grow fast. Like I said, its not that the T grows slow, its the conditions that represent their growth. I have done this to a Grammostola rosea as well. B. emelia..I can show you molt records of that species as well of their fast growth.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## OldHag (Aug 24, 2010)

I didnt keep mine at 85 yr round.. Summer probably 80, winter 72. That probably slowed her down.
Have no idea whats causing my emilia to be 6yrs old and only 1.5". Just the "exception to the rule"


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 24, 2010)

OldHag said:


> I didnt keep mine at 85 yr round.. Summer probably 80, winter 72. That probably slowed her down.
> Have no idea whats causing my emilia to be 6yrs old and only 1.5". Just the "exception to the rule"


I have them between 80F all the way up to 90F (summer) Never below 80F and in the really hot summer, all the way up to 97F.

Remember that they are cold blooded creatures. Surrounding temps has an effect on their body metabolism and functions. Cooler temps slows them down warmer temps speeds them up.

In the cool winter nights, it does occasionally go down to 70F.


----------



## xhexdx (Aug 24, 2010)

I'm sure you knew I'd be posting in this thread.

I want to focus on some specific points you make:



TalonAWD said:


> Since its almost officially a year, I wanted to write this.
> 
> The G. pulchra has gotten really popular in the past year. And I have read many threads where they state the pulchra is a slow grower. Some even want to get large ones just so they dont have to wait the so called "Long Time" to see the gorgeous black coloration. I have gotten many PM's asking how I get them to grow quick as well. Well now that I have some documented proof for the past year of owning one of these beauties, *I feel I should educate or shall I say Break this urban legend with proof with this species. *


More on this specific point later.



TalonAWD said:


> I say this with documented proof that the Grammostola pulchra is not a slow grower as many have you beleive. In fact after seeing this hopefully many will now see that its *quite the opposite.* If presented with *optimum circumstances*, you will get optimum results. And *by optimum I mean really warm temps and plenty of food*. (All my T's has this luxury)


Do you have a control specimen to compare to?
Do you have other species to compare to?

You can't really say _G. pulchra _is 'quite the opposite' of a slow grower unless you have somethig like, for example, _P. murinus_ that you are keeping in equal conditions and feeding on the same schedule.  If the _pulchra_ grows faster than the _murinus_, then your statement would be correct.  Until then, all you have is one specimen that grew faster because you fed the crap out of it and kept it warm.



TalonAWD said:


> Our journey takes us to when I bought my G. pulchra as a 1" specimen (*along with 2 others*) on September 1st 2009. *We will concentrate on just "Elvira"*


Why just "Elvira"?  Did your other two not grow as quickly?



TalonAWD said:


> Hopefully this will show others that the G. pulchra can grow quick and the myth of them being a slow grower is just that......*A Myth*.


One specimen compared against several years' worth of keepers who observe them as slow growers, and suddenly this whole 'slow growing' thing is just a myth?  Because of *one specimen*? 



TalonAWD said:


> Its not that they are slow growers, its that the *conditions they are living in represent their growth rate. This holds true for many species and not just the G. pulchra. *I chose this species to show this due to its popularity in the past year.


That's pretty much what I said above...meaning your experiment really doesn't hold much value unless you compare the growth rate of _G. pulchra_ to something considered a 'fast grower', like _P. murinus_ or even a pokie, as well as having a control specimen (or several 'control specimens') that are all being fed less and kept at cooler temperatures.

I'd also be curious to know how long this spider of yours lives, compared to one that took several years to grow to that size.

Added by edit:

Something else interesting...



TalonAWD said:


> Heres her molt schedule to date.
> *Received 09-01-09 1"
> Molted 09-07-09
> Molted 10-10-09 Sexed Female with Microscope
> ...


So what happened between December 2009 and March 2010?  No more than 2 months between every molt (most only 1 month) and there's a *4 month gap* between those two?

Are you sure your documentation is correct?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 24, 2010)

All my specimens grows fast. I have many documented proof and I always state this. I had 3 pulchras. They all grew at the same rate until I sold two. I have G rosea growing quick which is another slow grower. B. emelia is another. B. smithi, B vagans, B. boehmei, P. metallica, P regalis, C. marshalli, A chacoana etc. 

My newest experiement is the B. albiceps and I have four specimens.

And who knows what happened in that strange gap. The only thing I did different was rehouse her to her Enclosure creations. She stopped eating for a while..maybe the move?

All specimens gets the same treatment. I get similar results all the time and proud of it.



xhexdx said:


> I'm sure you knew I'd be posting in this thread.


Mister "i want to prove you wrong"....yep I knew you would post. But even you know that I'm anal about records. I'm no noob and can pretty much back up my statement.


----------



## xhexdx (Aug 24, 2010)

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

You need to prove that a spider that is considered a *fast grower* does *not* grow faster than your _pulchra_ under *identical conditions*.

I'm not saying your spiders don't grow fast.  I'm saying your experiment doesn't prove anything without a control and without comparisons to species known for growing quickly.

Does this make sense?


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 24, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.
> 
> You need to prove that a spider that is considered a *fast grower* does *not* grow faster than your _pulchra_ under *identical conditions*.
> 
> ...


You mean like say L. parahybana?  I do have some OBT's slings that I can try it out on but I don't really like the OBT. I was trying to sell them lol. I have 4 slings. i also have M. balfouri and E. olivacea to try out.


----------



## xhexdx (Aug 24, 2010)

Sure, parahybana would be a good species to compare to.


----------



## EightLeggedFrea (Aug 24, 2010)

Very interesting info, Talon.


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (Aug 25, 2010)

I'm not sure Steve was out to create a science experiment the likes of which even you could understand Joe but was more so trying to see how fast he could grow his one female that he was keeping for no other reason than to satisfy himself, not you. I think given the fact that the G pulchra has a huge reputation among enthusiasts for being slow growing this does prove, without a doubt, that it is possible to create much higher than average growth rates. I think what Steve has done is awesome. Why don't you create your own experiment Joe and actually have something positive to share instead of constantly attempting to falsify something for being what it was never intended to be? That would be a welcome change.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Ok I will say this...
 I have the ultra rare Maraca cabocla slings. I have ALOT. And I have them in controled cubicles in my T room. Now for the one set I have 5th instars and then I have others that  ARE STILL 2ND INSTAR. All with the controled environments I put them in. (Note my T room has grown and been updated since that pic)







Now with regards to experimenting with L. parahybana. I only have a molt record of the most recent one but feel its not one to show the true potential as I got her as a 3.5" female specimen. I would have to try it on a sling to try out what you are asking. The only thing I can say is that I had a Male grow from 1" to 7" Mature in 9 months. But nothing documented to back it up. Someone donate a L. parahybana and I will be glad to try it out lol.

Heres my current L. parahybana molt record. Like I said not exactly what you want nor the correct info to do a comparison. She is currently 7" legspan now. 

Lasiodora parahybana "Laily"

Bought 9-15-09 3.5" Female
Molted 10-11-09  
Molted 11-26-09 
Premolt 1-13-10
Molted 02-01-10 
Molted 07-07-10 7"

I would try it on a 1" L. parahybana in the controlled environment of younger specimens. 

Another example of a fast grower in your terms?



x Mr Awesome x said:


> I'm not sure Steve was out to create a science experiment the likes of which even you could understand Joe but was more so trying to see how fast he could grow his one female that he was keeping for no other reason than to satisfy himself, not you. I think given the fact that the G pulchra has a huge reputation among enthusiasts for being slow growing this does prove, without a doubt, that it is possible to create much higher than average growth rates. I think what Steve has done is awesome. Why don't you create your own experiment Joe and actually have something positive to share instead of constantly attempting to falsify something for being what it was never intended to be? That would be a welcome change.


Thank you Ben. A big +1. I do this for me but felt I should share the wealth. I have been doing this for 11 years now.


----------



## malevolentrobot (Aug 25, 2010)

okay, i'd like to preface this reply with the fact i am not against powerfeeding slings personally. i'm doing it with mine until they hit 2" and i believe i have seen you post in the past you stop at 3".

 also, i think it's really great that you are posting your experiences with your pulchra, since they are commonly known as slow growers.

no disrespect, but i too am very curious to see how much powerfeeding on this scale decreases their lifespan. are we talking years off of a female's life? have you been doing this long enough to give us an accurate approximation on how this will affect the longevity of our Ts if we decide to do it as well? you say 11 years you have been doing this, so maybe you can shed some light on how your older specimens are doing after this regimen.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

malevolentrobot said:


> okay, i'd like to preface this reply with the fact i am not against powerfeeding slings personally. i'm doing it with mine until they hit 2" and i believe i have seen you post in the past you stop at 3".
> 
> also, i think it's really great that you are posting your experiences with your pulchra, since they are commonly known as slow growers.
> 
> no disrespect, but i too am very curious to see how much powerfeeding on this scale decreases their lifespan. are we talking years off of a female's life? have you been doing this long enough to give us an accurate approximation on how this will affect the longevity of our Ts if we decide to do it as well? you say 11 years you have been doing this, so maybe you can shed some light on how your older specimens are doing after this regimen?


I generally do not keep every single specimen. Sometimes life gets in the way and I sell them, and start all over. I keep them as a hobby, and so this means I trade them, buy new ones, sell old ones etc. They are not pets to me where some would get extremely attached to one and never ever get rid of them. So far my oldest specimen in my care is the GBB. That is 3 yrs of ownership. 
I don't keep them to see how long they live, i keep them for enjoyment. When i get bored, I change it up. When I need money i sell them off. When I want new ones i buy more. I personally am not worried about how long they live as if it dies, i get another one or I breed them to continue the saga (as in my GBB) 
So in my 11 years, I have had LOTS of Tarantula's, But in the 11 years, I have not kept 1 tarantula.

Theres only one "Pet" I have ever had and that was a ferret. A tarantula is not really a pet as it does not nor has the capacity of showing the same interest I show them. They could care less if I existed. My ferret lived 9 yrs. That was the only pet i have ever owned. I own no other pets.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Aug 25, 2010)

Nice record keeping. I definitely haven't experienced that rate of growth with my G. pulchras.   Have you experienced any negative consequences of inducing such rapid growth rates?  I ask because rapid growth in other animals, notably chelonians, has been shown to be detrimental.  For example, in chelonians you often see shortened lifespans, malformed shells , multiple organ failure, and sterility.  While you definitely won't observe malformed  shells, you could observe sterility or shortened lifespans.  Just curious...


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Nokturnal1980 said:


> Nice record keeping. I definitely haven't experienced that rate of growth with my G. pulchras.   Have you experienced any negative consequences of inducing such rapid growth rates?  I ask because rapid growth in other animals, notably chelonians, has been shown to be detrimental.  For example, in chelonians you often see shortened lifespans, malformed shells , multiple organ failure, and sterility.  While you definitely won't observe malformed  shells, you could observe sterility or shortened lifespans.  Just curious...


To answer your question in part reference the post above yours. (Post #20)

Now to add to it, my GBB is 3yrs in my care and has produced 2 sacs. She is just dandy. Nothing out of the ordinary.


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> To answer your question in part reference the post above yours. (Post #20)
> 
> Now to add to it, my GBB is 3yrs in my care and has produced 2 sacs. She is just dandy. Nothing out of the ordinary.


Yes, I noticed that post slipped in while I was typing rather slowly-  sorry to be slightly repetitive.  What was the state of the two sacs produced?  Were the sacs of average size with average survival rates?

It's fascinating that you achieved that kind of growth rate with a G. pulchra.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Nokturnal1980 said:


> Yes, I noticed that post slipped in while I was typing rather slowly-  sorry to be slightly repetitive.  What was the state of the two sacs produced?  Were the sacs of average size with average survival rates?
> 
> It's fascinating that you achieved that kind of growth rate with a G. pulchra.


First sac was infertile. Second sac was 100% successful with 100% survival rate. I'm currently selling gorgeous GBB's

You havent seen my videos??? Shame on you!

EDIT: I must add the time between both breedings was 7 months


----------



## NevularScorpion (Aug 25, 2010)

that is awesome bro, thanks for sharing us your experience. I will increase my temps too to 85 .


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

NevularScorpion said:


> that is awesome bro, thanks for sharing us your experience. I will increase my temps too to 85 .


Bear in mind with increasing temps, you also have to increase the misting as to prevent dehydration. Higher temps will cause much faster evaporation. I have water dishes that dry out sometimes in 3 days! (When the temps hit 90F Plus). So don't raise the temps and forget about them. I look at my T's first thing when I get up, right after work, than right before going to bed....3 X's a day. (Sometimes more)

With cooler temps you can get lazy and not worry as much.

For my larger enclosures I mist below the substrate level using a syringe. That way water can evaporate into the air through the substrate.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Ok I will say this...
> I have the ultra rare Maraca cabocla slings. I have ALOT. And I have them in controled cubicles in my T room. Now for the one set I have 5th instars and then I have others that  ARE STILL 2ND INSTAR. All with the controled environments I put them in. (Note my T room has grown and been updated since that pic)


Heres a picture to back this up. I just took out my 2nd instar Maraca and 5th instar Maraca. Both were born from the same sac (no other sac in the US) One was in controled cooler temps with controlled feedings. Other one was living the good life.

Enjoy! 

Hint: There are two Maraca cabocla tarantulas in the pic below. You probably need to look hard at the upper left corner.


----------



## xhexdx (Aug 25, 2010)

x Mr Awesome x said:


> I'm not sure Steve was out to create a science experiment the likes of which even you could understand Joe but was more so trying to see how fast he could grow his one female that he was keeping for no other reason than to satisfy himself, not you. I think given the fact that the G pulchra has a huge reputation among enthusiasts for being slow growing this does prove, without a doubt, that it is possible to create much higher than average growth rates. I think what Steve has done is awesome. Why don't you create your own experiment Joe and actually have something positive to share instead of constantly attempting to falsify something for being what it was never intended to be? That would be a welcome change.


You're completely missing the point.  Please re-read my posts and take your predisposition of my 'out to get everybody' mentality out of the equation, and you might get it.

If Steve was only in it to satisfy himself, why post this at all?

Saying that he's proving, *without a doubt*, that it is possible to create higher than average growth rates is still a stretch when you're only using one specimen.  Besides that, it's pretty common knowledge among keepers that if you increase temps and increase food consumption, the spider grows faster.  No surprise there.

I'll say this again, in case you missed it:

*I am not saying Talon's spiders don't grow faster than an average keeper's spiders.*  I'm saying the claim that they aren't fast growers is invalid unless you perform the same experiment on a fast-growing species.  Excuse me for trying to clear up using a faulty experiment to debunk the 'myth'.  No offense intended to Talon with that statement - as I said, he does have a knack for growing them quickly.

Regarding long-term effects of this growth jump-start:



TalonAWD said:


> Now to add to it, my GBB is 3yrs in my care and has produced 2 sacs. She is just dandy. Nothing out of the ordinary.


3 years is hardly any time to tell if it's going to shorten her life span.  I'm sure since you've already been in the hobby for a while, that you will still be in the hobby and be able to post if and when she (and your pulchras, and your other jump-started spiders) do die?



TalonAWD said:


> I generally do not keep every single specimen. Sometimes life gets in the way and I sell them, and start all over. I keep them as a hobby, and so this means I trade them, buy new ones, sell old ones etc. They are not pets to me where some would get extremely attached to one and never ever get rid of them. So far my oldest specimen in my care is the GBB. That is 3 yrs of ownership.
> I don't keep them to see how long they live, i keep them for enjoyment. When i get bored, I change it up. When I need money i sell them off. When I want new ones i buy more. I personally am not worried about how long they live as if it dies, i get another one or I breed them to continue the saga (as in my GBB)
> So in my 11 years, I have had LOTS of Tarantula's, But in the 11 years, I have not kept 1 tarantula.


Oh...


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> If Steve was only in it to satisfy himself, why post this at all?


To share the wealth. Though you may know this, many do not obviously because I still get PM's asking me how do I do it, and whats my secret.



xhexdx said:


> Saying that he's proving, *without a doubt*, that it is possible to create higher than average growth rates is still a stretch when you're only using one specimen.  Besides that, it's pretty common knowledge among keepers that if you increase temps and increase food consumption, the spider grows faster.  No surprise there.


Again, not many know this. Some even complain about how slow their specimens grow. Sometimes you just need to show people facts to to really amaze them into beleiving.


xhexdx said:


> *I am not saying Talon's spiders don't grow faster than an average keeper's spiders.*  I'm saying the claim that they aren't fast growers is invalid unless you perform the same experiment on a fast-growing species.  Excuse me for trying to clear up using a faulty experiment to debunk the 'myth'.  No offense intended to Talon with that statement - as I said, he does have a knack for growing them quickly.


Give me a list of fast growers and I will see if I have a record of their molt cycles for you. And this was never an experiment. Just my normal routine as with all my specimens. I just chose to show this one due to its popularity.



xhexdx said:


> Regarding long-term effects of this growth jump-start:
> 3 years is hardly any time to tell if it's going to shorten her life span.  I'm sure since you've already been in the hobby for a while, that you will still be in the hobby and be able to post if and when she (and your pulchras, and your other jump-started spiders) do die?


Theres not many people that keep their specimens till they die. This is over rated. Seriously, the hobby will live on even if specimens die. Everyone has their own opinions as to how they want to keep specimens in their hobby. I keep them for enjoyment, others collect to have them all, others use them for breeding, and others may try to make money off them. Why judge one person for their methods when there are many ways to play the game. You don't like it, do it your way. But for me, I like to see colors and in some cases breed. Buying a sling at a lower cost than using my skills to accelerate growth is just another way in playing the Hobby. It just so happens that with tarantulas, it can be done. Yes, fast growth is not magic with these creatures. Its just realizing that it can be done and doing the method to acheive it.  And if it can be done, than it will be done by many and not just me. And for those people that realize that it can be done and see the method with facts/experience, (And even with pictures!! HA!! ) they will be informed. Then they too can do it if they feel its what they want.

I just decided that since I know this so called "Secret", that may be common knowledge to you Mr. "I know everything" but as I have stated, obviously not so common knowledge since I get asked about it frequently, I would share it. And in this thread I speak on just one specimen but people want to know more. And more specimens come into the subject. I speak on the Grammostola pulchra. I address the comment "Pulchra are slow growers" specifically. And Yes I go against the grain on this but as you can see I produce facts with pics to back it up. The G. pulchra is pretty popular for its jet black coloration. But to get it to have that gorgeous trait, it has to get large. I just showed people how they too can get it to show those colors at a much faster than average rate. Its not enough to say i can make them grow fast. Show people pictures and WOW!!! What an eye opener.

The Maraca cabocla is a fast grower and a slow grower in my care. I think I have proved myself with that one drastic picture reference in the post above yours.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## xhexdx (Aug 25, 2010)

It really is amazing that you continue to miss my point.  I should also add that I find your 'nicknames' for me quite amusing and childish.



TalonAWD said:


> The Maraca cabocla is a fast grower and a slow grower in my care. I think I have proved myself with that one drastic picture reference in the post above yours.


Yes, because...



TalonAWD said:


> Heres a picture to back this up. I just took out my 2nd instar Maraca and 5th instar Maraca. Both were born from the same sac (no other sac in the US) *One was in controled cooler temps with controlled feedings. Other one was living the good life*.


So what exactly are you proving?  It can't be that spiders grow faster when kept at higher temps and fed more, because that's already been proven.

Typically, you post threads on ATS as well.  If all you're doing is 'sharing the wealth', so to speak, why haven't you posted this there too?

Added by edit:



TalonAWD said:


> Theres not many people that keep their specimens till they die. This is over rated.


Should I run a search for 'died'?  Seems people's spiders die all the time.  How often do you hear of someone's spider dying of 'old age'?  Seems spiders are always dying for mysterious reasons, but I never see anyone attribute it to old age.

So either spiders never live long enough in captivity to die of old age, or we just don't know what we're talking about.  I'm opting for the latter.

I could continue but I really feel like you're going to continue to miss my point.  I mean, I already gave you examples of fast growers, yet you're still asking me for a list of them.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> So what exactly are you proving?  It can't be that spiders grow faster when kept at higher temps and fed more, because that's already been proven.


 That it can be done with many species. Faster growth that is. Reread my post. I'm sharing the so called "Secret" I have been asked, and now I reveal it.


xhexdx said:


> Typically, you post threads on ATS as well.  If all you're doing is 'sharing the wealth', so to speak, why haven't you posted this there too?


 So far its on two forums and on the other forum its big news with a sticky and a five star rating. Let me go put it right now...Thanks for the reminder haha.



xhexdx said:


> Should I run a search for 'died'?  Seems people's spiders die all the time.  How often do you hear of someone's spider dying of 'old age'?  Seems spiders are always dying for mysterious reasons, but I never see anyone attribute it to old age.
> 
> So either spiders never live long enough in captivity to die of old age, or we just don't know what we're talking about.  I'm opting for the latter.


Like I said. Play the hobby as you wish. Don't like my way, step aside. If a specimen dies, get another one. I do it for enjoyment, not companionship. Thats what my wife and daughters are for.

And I'm sorry but did not see the list of fast growers. Post them please.


----------



## xhexdx (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Thanks for the reminder haha.


My pleasure.  Time to make my rounds and repost my initial response on all those other forums.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> My pleasure.  Time to make my rounds and repost my initial response on all those other forums.


List of fast growers?

Heres another record in the meantime.

*Poecilotheria regalis.
Born in January
Bought May 16, 2008 1.25" Leg span        
Molt 5-30-08 
Molt 6-21-08 
Molt 7-14-08 
Molt 08-08-08 (3.5" Leg Span)                 
Molt 9-09-2008 (5" Leg span)           
Molt 10-27-2008 (5 3/4" Leg span)   
Sold specimen.*


----------



## Skullptor (Aug 25, 2010)

I have a so-called fast grower (LP) I bought from Patrick on 2/2008. It's about 4" now 2 1/2 years later.


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (Aug 25, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> I'm sure you knew I'd be posting in this thread.





xhexdx said:


> Please re-read my posts and take your predisposition of my 'out to get everybody' mentality out of the equation, and you might get it.


Get off it Joe. You know as well as anybody how you are. You announce your own entrance into a thread for God's sake. Why? To express that you are about to act in a way that maintains your own reputation of badgering and condescending. Congrats. You haven't disappointed anyone in respect to that. And just like clockwork you try to neutralize your own crap attitude with a disclaimer like, "I'm just straight to the point" or "I'm not out to get everybody" which was implied here. That is precisely what you do. *More on that in a second.*




xhexdx said:


> I'll say this again, in case you missed it:
> 
> *I am not saying Talon's spiders don't grow faster than an average keeper's spiders.*  I'm saying the claim that they aren't fast *(You mean slow??)* growers is invalid unless you perform the same experiment on a fast-growing species. Excuse me for trying to clear up using a faulty experiment to debunk the 'myth'.  No offense intended to Talon with that statement - as I said, he does have a knack for growing them quickly.


Okay. So let me get this straight. Joe, you're trying to, for the greater whole of the arachnid keeping community, clear up what would *YOU * would semantically define 'fast' or 'slow' growing? Okay... So because Grammastola pulchra have been considered slow growing thus far in the hobby Talon should not call his specimen 'fast growing'. In fact he should call it something retarded like 'much faster-than-normal-growing-slow-growing'. Right? That's your _whole_ point? Impressive. Thank you Joe. Now I know to call my P. murinus not slow growing, because it's not a slow grower, what it's rightful name is, 'considerably-slower-than-normal-growing-fast-growing-OBT'. I would have hated to look like an idiot for using the wrong term. 

Did I make my point? You're so far off base from anything relevant or even considerable that you're just badgering. That's it. No where in the headline of this thread did it say anything that should have sent up blip on your radar to address misinformation. No, it seems the fact that it was authored my TalonAWD and he was offering something useful and out of the ordinary was more than enough reason for you to try and wreck something that the rest of us can humbly enjoy. I really think you need another hobby besides this one Joe, something to keep you busy.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Fran (Aug 25, 2010)

Skullptor said:


> I have a so-called fast grower (LP) I bought from Patrick on 2/2008. It's about 4" now 2 1/2 years later.


That is an exception.

If you keep them within reasonable temps (75-85F ) they should grow much faster.

On a side note, what Joe is trying to say, basically , is that unfortunately the fact that one pulchra or 10 grew faster than expected, it doesnt mean the whole specie in fact is a fast grower.

We all know how he posts, as well as everybody as their own style.


----------



## Snuggles (Aug 25, 2010)

They deleted all your comments on the other site, Joe.


----------



## xhexdx (Aug 25, 2010)

Funny you should correct an error in my post - I'll go ahead and turn yours red.  Also, while we're correcting...it's spelled _Gramm*o*stola_.



x Mr Awesome x said:


> Get off it Joe. You know as well as anybody how you are. You announce your own entrance into a thread for God's sake. Why? To express that you are about to act in a way that maintains your own reputation of badgering and condescending. Congrats. You haven't disappointed anyone in respect to that. And just like clockwork you try to neutralize your own crap attitude with a disclaimer like, "I'm just straight to the point" or "I'm not out to get everybody" which was implied here. That is precisely what you do. *More on that in a second.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let me know when you get Talon's poop off your nose, and we can talk like adults.



Snuggles said:


> They deleted all your comments on the other site, Joe.


Yeah, I saw.  Besides, they all can (and most likely will) read it here anyway.


----------



## Fran (Aug 25, 2010)

We are on Arachnoboards. What happens in other sites shouldnt corncern us..At least not to start crap.

What Joe was saying was correct, they way he said it might not be the most smooth.


----------



## Shell (Aug 25, 2010)

It has never been a "secret" that warmer temps and more food will cause faster growth. Going as far as saying that this one pulchra disproves the fact that pulchra's are slow growers, is ridiculous in my opinion.

I realize it's a different species, but I have a G. pulchripes that went from 2" DLS to 5.5" DLS in 6 months. However, I am fully aware that it is due to the fact that our place is very warm and I offered her plenty of food during that time, never for a second did I assume that this meant that the pulchripes is actually a fast grower.

I fully agree with everything Joe has said. If it was a controlled experiment with more specimens, then sure, maybe I could take this seriously, until then, I really can't.


----------



## Anastasia (Aug 25, 2010)

Fran said:


> That is an exception.
> 
> *If you keep them within reasonable temps (75-85F ) they should grow much faster.
> *
> On a side note, what joe is trying to say, basically , is that unfortunately the fact that one pulchra or 10 grew faster than expected, it doesnt mean the whole specie in fact is a fast grower.


not always truth, I think what Joe try to point to compare apples to apples not bananas or possums
if specimens kept in same conditions (temp/hum etc )but fed on different schedules (one gets limited one all what he can eat)
or one specimen kept cool and food limited and one warmer and with plenty food
I have experience several sac-mates been kept on same schedule (temp/food/etc) and some wore alot smaller then other
so the point is, they all unique and there is always exceptions

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Fran (Aug 25, 2010)

Anastasia said:


> not always truth, I think what Joe try to point to compare apples to apples not bananas or possums
> if specimens kept in same conditions (temp/hum etc )but fed on different schedules (one gets limited one all what he can eat)
> or one specimen kept cool and food limited and one warmer and with plenty food
> I have experience several sac-mates been kept on same schedule (temp/food/etc) and some wore alot smaller then other
> so the point is, they all unique and there is always exceptions


It is always true on Parahybanas, except rare exceptions.


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (Aug 25, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Funny you should correct an error in my post - I'll go ahead and turn yours red.  Also, while we're correcting...it's spelled _Gramm*o*stola_.
> 
> Let me know when you get Talon's poop off your nose, and we can talk like adults.



Thanks for the correction. it's the biggest contribution to this thread you've made so far. I only highlighted yours so that it would make sense in the way I felt you intended it to. And that last comment is a priceless contradiction. Kudos. Funny how you can't seem to address any of my actual points Joe, go figure.


Steve's records prove that it can be done. That's all. Lots of people on here probably don't realize that because of the  reputation of the Grammostola pulchra. How the heck anyone is managing to try to deny him sharing that is nuts to me.


----------



## xhexdx (Aug 25, 2010)

You made no valid points, and your post correcting me was your biggest contribution as well.

Let me know when you have something to say that makes sense.


----------



## Shell (Aug 25, 2010)

x Mr Awesome x said:


> Steve's records prove that it can be done. That's all. Lots of people on here probably don't realize that because of the  reputation of the Grammostola pulchra. How the heck anyone is managing to try to deny him sharing that is nuts to me.


Sharing is one thing, going as far as saying that pulchras aren't slow growers because of this one spider, is a totally different thing. He said it himself, that he kept it warm and fed it a lot. Unless you are totally new to this hobby, then we are all familiar that keeping them like that can speed up growth, regardless of the species, it's hardly a new bit of information.


----------



## Mack&Cass (Aug 25, 2010)

I think myth was the wrong word to choose...it would be appropriate to call it a myth if they grew faster than that pokie example you posted...but they didn't, so relative to that, they're still slow growers.

I agree with Joe and Shelley, yeah you got them to grow freakishly fast, but that's not reason enough to go around saying they're not slow growers. If you could do an experiment with the pulchra against several fast growers and get the pulchra to grow quicker (with all specimens being given the same conditions and same amount of food and heat) then you could go around calling it a myth, but until then I suggest you reword your statements.

Cass


----------



## Sleazoid (Aug 25, 2010)

This thread is a shining example as to why you should never get into a debate with Joe, you will lose.


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (Aug 25, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> You made no valid points, and your post correcting me was your biggest contribution as well.
> 
> Let me know when you have something to say that makes sense.


Joe, I suggest rereading my post. What I stated was simple. You're turning this whole thing into an argument about what to call the pulchra, slow growing or not. My point was who cares? You've turned the thread into something that it never was! Steve was stating that for him it wasn't a slow grower because of ideal conditions that instigated growth. That should have been the end of it. People would have maybe realized that the tarantula they were counting on growing slowly for them could potentially be induced to these circumstances for better results. I'd doubt everyone in the hobby would have called them fast growers like a P. murinus but maybe they'd have soaked in the realization that it's possible to have faster than normal growth rates. i don't understand what's not to appreciate about that! Anyone that isn't contributing positively to this thread needs to take a hard look at the fact that they're literally arguing semantics! 

Should Steve have chosen his words more carefully? I don't think so. For him it makes perfect sense. If you don't like it, don't board it. Simple as that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B8709 (Aug 25, 2010)

Chocoboizm said:


> This thread is a shining example as to why you should_ never _get into a debate with Joe, you will lose.


All men are fallible sooner or later. I don't know who's right in this case because I don't wanna read through this long & ridiculous debate. 
Stop arguing. Kiss and make up.


----------



## Shell (Aug 25, 2010)

x Mr Awesome x said:


> maybe they'd have soaked in the realization that it's possible to have faster than normal growth rates. i don't understand what's not to appreciate about that!


As already stated, unless you are totally new to this hobby, then this really isn't new information. Not that it isn't appreciated, but what everyone is talking about is the choice of words. Saying that pulchras aren't slow growers because one happened to grow faster then others under "ideal" conditions, is what started this. The "argument" makes perfect sense to me.




x Mr Awesome x said:


> Anyone that isn't contributing positively to this thread needs to take a hard look at the fact that they're literally arguing semantics!


I see it quite the opposite, the people that you feel are not "contributing positively," are simply pointing out the flaws of the initial statement, and those points of view are very valid to this discussion.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Sometimes people do not read the entire thread but rather focus their comments on specific posts of the thread. 

Let me spell it out for everyone once more.

Grammostola pulchra is just the one I chose to focus on for this thread. Many people say they are slow growers. Only a handful of people say otherwise. I made this thread to show that it can be done faster than what people state.

Reason is because I was asked many times. Theres no secret, just a reality. Growth rate regardless of species can be sped up if conditions are optimum. And buy Optimum I mean alot warmer temps and alot of food. Temps that are 85F or higher. (In my case sometimes alot higher)

It can be done so it shall be done. Just not many choose this route. And then theres those that just plain don't know or didn't know. That is my point. 
Fast grower or slow grower....Plain and simple, theres always another way and the way I do it exceeds the speeds of the norm regardless of which species it is. To me it was worth noting and sharing for those that do not know.

And if your grew slow...I explained that with me and with my experience, with so many different species over the course of many years, Mine never grow SLOW or as slow as other claim theirs to be. And as always with me being anal about record keeping, I can whip out a molt record and pics to prove it.

Don't like the info? Step aside. Like the info, tag along for the ride.

And last, this was not an experiement. ALL my specimens have the same results. Maybe its the way I keep them:? 

I'll quote again joes own words that shows he admits my methods goes with my reputation.



xhexdx said:


> *I am not saying Talon's spiders don't grow faster than an average keeper's spiders......... as I said, he does have a knack for growing them quickly.*

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (Aug 25, 2010)

Shell take a look at 80% of the threads in Q&D and TC section and it will be obvious that a huge portion of members are not so experienced and obviously don't know how to use a search function. While you may not have learned anything because you are astute with experience there are plenty of people that would have. I too was already aware that tarantulas in warmer temps with high feeding regimens would grow faster. I don't document it like Talon though. So I got on and showed some support. There are tons of worthless threads that dumb down the hobby and I'd rather see those scrutinized than something of some value or merit like this one.


----------



## xhexdx (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> I made this thread to show that it can be done faster than what people state.


The thread subject is...'The Grammostola pulchra myth'

First post:



TalonAWD said:


> I feel I should educate or shall I say *Break this urban legend* with proof with this species.





TalonAWD said:


> I say this with documented proof that the *Grammostola pulchra is not a slow grower *as many have you beleive. In fact after seeing this hopefully many will now see that *its quite the opposite*.





TalonAWD said:


> ...and the myth of them being a slow grower is just that......*A Myth*.


Back to what you just said:



TalonAWD said:


> I made this thread to show that it can be done faster than what people state.


So why not just say that in the first place and save this entire debate?  Because it was originally to debunk a myth, not to show that it can be done faster than what people state.



x Mr Awesome x said:


> Shell take a look at 80% of the threads in Q&D and TC section and it will be obvious that a huge portion of members are not so experienced and obviously don't know how to use a search function. While you may not have learned anything because you are astute with experience there are plenty of people that would have. I too was already aware that tarantulas in warmer temps with high feeding regimens would grow faster. I don't document it like Talon though. So I got on and showed some support. There are tons of worthless threads that dumb down the hobby and I'd rather see those scrutinized than something of some value or merit like this one.


So what you're saying is by posting a thread about it, people who aren't experienced and don't know how to search will see it and read it, right?

Hmm...Talon isn't the only one who can toot his own horn:

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=145454

Just because something was posted (or even stickied) doesn't mean people will read it and not ask the same questions.


----------



## Anastasia (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Sometimes people do not read the entire thread but rather focus their comments on specific posts of the thread.
> 
> Let me spell it out for everyone once more.
> 
> ...


Steve,
may I ask how much higher over 85?
I happened to loose tarantulas to warmer temperatures


----------



## Shell (Aug 25, 2010)

x Mr Awesome x said:


> Shell take a look at 80% of the threads in Q&D and TC section and it will be obvious that a huge portion of members are not so experienced and obviously don't know how to use a search function. While you may not have learned anything because you are astute with experience there are plenty of people that would have. I too was already aware that tarantulas in warmer temps with high feeding regimens would grow faster. I don't document it like Talon though. So I got on and showed some support. There are tons of worthless threads that dumb down the hobby and I'd rather see those scrutinized than something of some value or merit like this one.


Trust me, I am forever noticing the "worthless" threads being posted. 

I think the reason people (myself included) spoke up here, is because of the misleading way the initial post was worded (and the title of the thread.) 

Maybe new people haven't yet learned what temps and lots of food can do, and that info is valuable, but it would have been much better to word the initial post better.  Then when a new person is reading and looking for info, they would clearly see, that yes it is possible to speed up growth. However, they would also see (which they will now, thanks to the discussion being had) both sides to this, and that the pulchra is not typically a fast grower, and that there really is no "myth" to disprove.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Anastasia said:


> Steve,
> may I ask how much higher over 85?
> I happened to loose tarantulas to warmer temperatures


Up to 97F. If you lose tarantulas, maybe its something you are doing wrong. Slings and adults get the same temps. If I find a pic i'll post it, if not I'll take a pic and post it on a very hot day to prove it.  After all I love proving stuff


----------



## esotericman (Aug 25, 2010)

What species are we talking about Ana?  _P. subfusca_ would fold and die at "high" temps, where _P. murinus_ (sloppy use of the binomials, I know) would not have an issue at all.

It'd be nice if we could stay focused on _G. pulchra_, but if it's just temperature we're talking about here, why bother?  Warm tarantulas are physiologically "faster" up to a point.  It's not a shocker.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> The thread subject is...'The Grammostola pulchra myth'
> 
> So why not just say that in the first place and save this entire debate?  Because it was originally to debunk a myth, not to show that it can be done faster than what people state.


 To me its still a myth even if you do not agree. Thats my view and I stick to it. For so long it has held that reputation. I prove otherwise and not just with this one species.



xhexdx said:


> So what you're saying is by posting a thread about it, people who aren't experienced and don't know how to search will see it and read it, right?


 Yes thats what I'm saying. Unfortunately most people do not search for this info because if they did, then they would see my countless post over the 3+ yrs being a member stating this same fact over and over again.



xhexdx said:


> Just because something was posted (or even stickied) doesn't mean people will read it and not ask the same questions.


Right, hence why I post this thread. Obviously people are still asking me via PM how i do it.


----------



## Anastasia (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Up to 97F. If you lose tarantulas, maybe its something you are doing wrong. Slings and adults get the same temps. If I find a pic i'll post it, if not I'll take a pic and post it on a very hot day to prove it.  After all I love proving stuff


Really? you mean any tarantulas could be kept at temps is high as 97 and be happy and healthy in your care
oppose me possibly doing something wrong
Am not even sure if I got that right


----------



## Draiman (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> To me its still a myth even if you do not agree.


You can't accurately call it a "myth", because there is no common variable in your "experiment". If I kept a (normally fast-growing) P. murinus or a Psalmopoeus in the same conditions as you did with your pulchra, it would grow even faster than it normally would, and it would then make your "fast-growing" pulchra look a slow grower again. I don't think you ever understood what Joe was trying to put across. For a comparison to be fair you have to have a common variable.

Therefore, under the SAME living conditions, G. pulchra is a slow grower compared to the likes of P. murinus, Poecilotheria and Psalmopoeus. Your experiment did nothing to prove otherwise.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Anastasia said:


> Really? you mean any tarantulas could be kept at temps is high as 97 and be happy and healthy in your care
> oppose me possibly doing something wrong
> Am not even sure if I got that right


Its more maintenace to keep them at high temps yes, but I was adressing your statement directly. No T in my care dies through heat exhaustion. Period. If you would like proof, i will be happy to get a pic of the temp guage reading on a hot day.

Why debate against me if I'm telling you that I, me, do it and do it successfully. I do it and I do it successfully, if you can't doit thats ok. Just stating a fact. This does not make you any less of a keeper. I like strawberry icecream and if you don't thats ok. No judgement is passed upon you.


----------



## Anastasia (Aug 25, 2010)

esotericman said:


> What species are we talking about Ana?  _P. subfusca_ would fold and die at "high" temps, where _P. murinus_ (sloppy use of the binomials, I know) would not have an issue at all.
> 
> It'd be nice if we could stay focused on _G. pulchra_, but if it's just temperature we're talking about here, why bother?  Warm tarantulas are physiologically "faster" up to a point.  It's not a shocker.


Yes, that is correct
P subfusca is one of them so is Megaphobema mesomelas and many others


----------



## Fran (Aug 25, 2010)

Anastasia said:


> Really? you mean any tarantulas could be kept at temps is high as 97 and be happy and healthy in your care
> oppose me possibly doing something wrong
> Am not even sure if I got that right


As anastasia implied,
Im sorry but I highly doubt tarantulas will do "fine" at 97F for a long time, and I mean days. Specially  rain forest t's.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Draiman said:


> You can't accurately call it a "myth", because there is no common variable in your "experiment". If I kept a (normally fast-growing) P. murinus or a Psalmopoeus in the same conditions as you did with your pulchra, it would grow even faster than it normally would, and it would then make your "fast-growing" pulchra look a slow grower again. I don't think you ever understood what Joe was trying to put across. For a comparison to be fair you have to have a common variable.
> 
> Therefore, under the SAME living conditions, G. pulchra is a slow grower compared to the likes of P. murinus, Poecilotheria and Psalmopoeus. Your experiment did nothing to prove otherwise.


The title is an attention grabber. 



Fran said:


> As anastasia implied,
> Im sorry but I highly doubt tarantulas will do "fine" at 97F for a long time, and I mean days. Specially  rain forest t's.


Everyday is a new day. God makes the sun rise and controls the temps of my location. My job is to ensure my T's are hydrated and living. So regardless I do it successfully. 

Just like everyday is a new day and temperatures fluctuate, so does my T room. *But I have had it AS HIGH AS 97F* You don't have to do it. I'm just stating my experience.


----------



## Fran (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Everyday is a new day. God makes the sun rise and controls the temps of my location. My job is to ensure my T's are hydrated and living. So regardless I do it successfully.
> 
> Just like everyday is a new day and temperatures fluctuate, so does my T room. *But I have had it AS HIGH AS 97F*


Good thing you are not keeping them in a Sauna .


----------



## Draiman (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> The title is an attention grabber.


Uh, I don't think so. Your original post stated:



TalonAWD said:


> Hopefully this will show others that the G. pulchra can grow quick and the myth of them being a slow grower is just that......*A Myth*.


You say it is a myth that G. pulchra is a slow grower, just because you observed faster growth with enhanced, unnatural living conditions. What everyone has been trying to tell you is, you CANNOT use that as evidence that G. pulchra is not a slow grower - simply because you do not have a control with a common variable (in this case, the living conditions). This is simple logic and you clearly fail to grasp it.


----------



## Mack&Cass (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> The title is an attention grabber. You are here arent you? Some people are rediculous.


Insulting people because they aren't praising you like others in this thread is ridiculous. 

Cass


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> To me its still a myth even if you do not agree. Thats my view and I stick to it. For so long it has held that reputation. I prove otherwise and not just with this one species.


I requote my view.



Mack&Cass said:


> Insulting people because they aren't praising you like others in this thread is ridiculous.
> 
> Cass


It was not an insult, its a view. I apologize if it insults you directly. I removed offending comment.


----------



## Anastasia (Aug 25, 2010)

Fran said:


> Good thing you are not keeping them in a Sauna .


or an oven 
Steve, dont get me wrong, but your statement about generalizing all tarantulas to higher temperatures (life well been)  possibly wrong?


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Anastasia said:


> or an oven
> Steve, dont get me wrong, but your statement about generalizing all tarantulas to higher temperatures (life well been)  possibly wrong?


I'm not telling anyone to do it. Look, I started this thread to inform of a method i use, not to be rediculed, judged and have my thread disected into a million pieces in a judgemental manner. I live in California. Sunny and hot. It happens. It gets hot, and my T room gets hot. I didn't do this as an experiment, I actually keep my T's this way because that is how it is. And because of this environment, they grow quicker. Thats my point. Even the G. rosea grows amazingly quick in my care. 
Is that not proof that maybe its the way I'm keeping them.?


----------



## Fran (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> The title is an attention grabber.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are acting quite a bit hard headed. No need to get defensive man, Do what you please with your t's.

I didnt want to get into it, but I will.  So far, neither you uncovered a myth or proved it wrong and now you get defensive when people doubt your methods like letting your T's at almost 100F.


----------



## Sleazoid (Aug 25, 2010)

It has gotten 95F in northern Georgia where I live. Our air conditioner being out of action for a few days. I had 1" B. vagans in a death curl, it survived thanks to an ICU. I do not blame myself since I keep all of my T's well hydrated, to think that it would be me doing something wrong as to why it was in a death curl instead of the high temps is something I wish I could believe.


----------



## Draiman (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> I requote my view.


Your "view", then, is misguided, misinformed and quite incorrect.

Hopefully this makes it a little easier (for you) to understand:

ANYONE could take what is generally accepted to be a slow-growing species, feed and keep it like you do, and achieve a growth rate much higher than usual. Does that mean the species is not slow-growing, compared to other species? No it does not. I could keep a G. rosea at 95 degrees, feed it 5 times a day and it would almost certainly grow faster than any other G. rosea in the world. Does that mean I have debunked a "myth"? Does that mean G. rosea is not a slow-growing species after all? No it does not, because I could also keep a Pterinochilus murinus, for instance, at 95 degrees and feed it 5 times a day and it would still grow significantly faster than the G. rosea.

You have proven nothing with your "experiment".


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Fran said:


> You are acting quite a bit hard headed. No need to get defensive man, Do what you please with your t's.
> 
> I didnt want to get into it, but I will.  So far, neither you uncovered a myth or proved it wrong and now you get defensive when people doubt your methods like letting your T's at almost 100F.


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.


----------



## Fran (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> I basically show that I can pic a specimen and prove that it can grow quick.


But my friend...ANYBODY can do that. :?

and is not quick, but quickER.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Draiman said:


> Your "view", then, is misguided, misinformed and quite incorrect.
> 
> Hopefully this makes it a little easier (for you) to understand:
> 
> ...


Yes that makes sense and appreciate this angle. But with this thread I do get across that it is possible which no one actuallycan prove as I have done. So therefore it is informational.

I have tried telling people the same way you state here in your quote above. But what about the people that ask me specifically? I think this thread have spoken to those that wanted to know. I always can say i have a bigger specimen than the masses. But what good is that without sharing how I did it so that one person with the same desire can decide whether to do it or not.



Fran said:


> But my friend...ANYBODY can do that. :?
> 
> and is not quick, but quickER.


Exactly. Thats my point. No secret. Hence me explaining it. But unfortunately, the word "Myth" gets everyone all hyper.

Maybe I should have titled "My G. pulchra grew fast, heres how" Maybe then this thread would not be 5 pages long with most of it being debate. Which is famous here in this forum.


----------



## xhexdx (Aug 25, 2010)

Fran said:


> and is not quick, but quickER.


Actually... 

The correct grammar would be to say you can make it grow _more quickly_.


----------



## Draiman (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> what good is that without sharing how I did it so that one person with the same desire can decide whether to do it or not.


Nobody has a problem with your sharing what you did. What irks people is the fact that you worded your posts to suggest that you "debunked the myth" of G. pulchra being a slow(er)-growing species. Which you did _not_. It irks people because it is, after all, misinformation.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Draiman said:


> Nobody has a problem with your sharing what you did. What irks people is the fact that you worded your posts to suggest that you "debunked the myth" of G. pulchra being a slow(er)-growing species. Which you did _not_. It irks people because it is, after all, misinformation.


It irks people in this forum. Not all people.


----------



## Draiman (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> It irks people in this forum. Not all people.


Misinformation, especially misinformation on an information-sharing forum on animal husbandry, ought to be corrected, no? :?


----------



## Fran (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> It irks people in this forum. Not all people.


Maybe because in this forum;
-theres a higher traffic of people
-People on it is more experienced than in  others.

Again, the forum comment has nothing to do with it.


----------



## TalonAWD (Aug 25, 2010)

Draiman said:


> Misinformation, especially misinformation on an information-sharing forum on animal husbandry, ought to be corrected, no? :?


Yes I agree. Myth is a bad choice of a word. I have stated what it might have or should have been titled in post #74


----------



## BrettG (Aug 25, 2010)

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 (Aug 25, 2010)

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


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Aug 25, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2010)

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 (Aug 25, 2010)

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 (Aug 25, 2010)

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 (Aug 25, 2010)

Nicole said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2010)

elportoed said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2010)

*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 (Aug 26, 2010)

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?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dexter (Aug 26, 2010)

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


----------



## satanslilhelper (Aug 26, 2010)

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


----------



## esotericman (Aug 26, 2010)

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 (Aug 26, 2010)

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 (Aug 27, 2010)

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 (Aug 27, 2010)

Andrew,



cacoseraph said:


> 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 (Aug 27, 2010)

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 (Aug 27, 2010)

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 (Aug 27, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> 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 (Aug 28, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> 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!


----------



## NevularScorpion (Aug 28, 2010)

Mister Internet said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


nice explanation Sir


----------



## Fran (Aug 28, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> 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.
> ...


I yet have to see where he got bashed,or thread-ruined.

I just dont see it. Maybe we just need to agree with everybody, applaud all the info and in between lollypops and rainbows  fill up the boards with wrong information.


----------



## WARPIG (Aug 28, 2010)

Fran said:


> Maybe we just need to agree with everybody, applaud all the info and in between lollypops and rainbows  fill up the boards with wrong information.


LMAO!!!

I read this entire thread, saw where the OP was trying to make statements that did not apply to the way all hobbyists keep their T's and saw the wheels coming off this bad boy quick.

In his experience, with his techniques, his pulchras grew fast, thats all I take from his post, nothing else.

G pulchras grow slow relatively speaking. I have a lil guy, two yrs now and he's not 2" yet. I'm in no hurry to watch him die, let him grow at his own slow pace.

PIG-


----------



## Ictinike (Aug 29, 2010)

Read the entire thing, word for word, and yes it took me nearly 25 minutes 

Not siding with anyone/thing here but a point I think Talon mentioned that goes without saying that in the past he's rebutted several times that he has had specimens of various species that are generally considered "slow growers" that he's had success with.

In knowing this, reading those posts, he has caught some "flames" from others pretty much denying the facts of his statements.  Typically he will give examples of his own experience where, in this case a G. pulchra, grew some 4-5 inches in a year and others will come in and blast the notion wherein the whole "slow grower", myth if you will, spawns from.

I can see at some point the notion that he's, I'm sure, become upset at those comments on his experience and honestly who wouldn't wish to disprove those that try to state he's wrong to the many legions of new keepers?

All in all I think Mr. Internet stated it well.  While I'm sure there was no real intention to cause the mass debate, in this case more wording than tarantula science, it goes without saying that words must be chosen properly in a format that doesn't allow much in the way of forgiveness.

It's good info and a good debate that all new keepers should read and take in to better these boards with more useful information in lieu of the most recent rash of, what I consider, not click worthy posts


----------



## pato_chacoana (Aug 29, 2010)

I really had a good time reading this thread!! :clap: I don't doubt the good intentions of the OP, but please read basic biology and you'll understand why the ''experiment'' doesn't prove anything at all! Although many posters basically explained it before... 

Cheers,
Pato


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

8 years after this post people still swear their pulchras grow slow. I guess they missed reading this? Lets bring it up! I'm sorry for the necro. The info the OP is trying to convey is legitimate and given the popularity of the species today, this might [the post] prove helpful.


----------



## Ungoliant (Sep 30, 2017)

efmp1987 said:


> 8 years after this post people still swear their pulchras grow slow. I guess they missed reading this? Lets bring it up! I'm sorry for the necro. The info the OP is trying to convey is legitimate and given the popularity of the species today, this might [the post] prove helpful.


I have not experienced anything with my two pulchras to suggest that they aren't the slow growers they are reputed to be.

When we talk about fast growers versus slow growers, we are necessarily comparing different species. Can you make a pulchra (or any other tarantula) grow faster by keeping it warm and feeding it more? Sure. That has been known for years.

But if you keep a _Grammostola pulchra_ and a _Pterinochilus murinus_ or _Poecilotheria_ at the same temperatures and on the same feeding schedule, will the pulchra grow as quickly as the other two? I would be stunned if it did.

That's why we say pulchras are slow growers: because _all other things being equal_, they take longer to reach maturity than many other species.

Reactions: Agree 5


----------



## The Grym Reaper (Sep 30, 2017)

efmp1987 said:


> 8 years after this post people still swear their pulchras grow slow. I guess they missed reading this? Lets bring it up! I'm sorry for the necro. The info the OP is trying to convey is legitimate and given the popularity of the species today, this might [the post] prove helpful.


@Ungoliant has pretty much nailed it with this:



Ungoliant said:


> When we talk about fast growers versus slow growers, we are necessarily comparing different species. Can you make a pulchra (or any other tarantula) grow faster by keeping it warm and feeding it more? Sure. That has been known for years.
> 
> But if you keep a _Grammostola pulchra_ and a _Pterinochilus murinus_ or _Poecilotheria_ at the same temperatures and on the same feeding schedules, will the pulchra grow as quickly as the other two? I would be stunned if it did.


But I'll go with examples of members from the same genus:

- G. pulchripes are commonly acknowledged to grow faster than G. pulchra 
- G. iheringi is the fastest growing member of the genus (it's also pretty fast in general by NW standards).

I keep my Tarantulas at the same temps and on the same feeding schedules and my G. pulchripes is growing painfully slowly (she's actually growing at around the same rate as my B. emilia which are known to be slow growers) compared to my G. iheringi, G. iheringi has both shorter moult cycles and gains more size per moult, when I got the iheringi she was smaller than the pulchripes, she very quickly overtook her in size.

To quote @Ungoliant again:



Ungoliant said:


> That's why we say pulchras are slow growers: because _all other things being equal_, they take longer to reach maturity than many other species.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 30, 2017)

Exactly what has been said. They're still slow growing even if you can speed them up a tad with feeding and temperatures. Likewise, you could slow then down even -further- by keeping it cool and feeding less. It's not legitimate information-- it's something *basic* that all T keepers should grasp if they do the appropriate research.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

The topic is the hastened growth rate of the pulchra species only, and pulchra alone. How pulchra 1, 2, 3, grew faster than pulchra pulchra 4, 5, 6. It is irrelevant to compare it with another species universally-acknowledged to grow faster even when fed twice a month because presented with the same optimal conditionals the pulchra subjects in this thread were given, that species (non-pulchra)will grow faster yet. The conversation is on an intraspecific level only.

@miss moxie it might not be that basic. If it was, everyone pulchras will be growing up to 5.5 inches in a single year by now. Even yours took 3 years to become a juvenile. OP mentioned a lot of food. But how much? Is it enough to challenge the belief of most to feed only twice or once a week. Because for all we know the OP fed daily.

If faster growth occurs under optimal conditionals (1 year growth spurt), will that render our husbandry conditions "sub-optimal" because ours take twice or thrice as longer to grow?


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 30, 2017)

efmp1987 said:


> The topic is the hastened growth rate of the pulchra species only, and pulchra alone. How pulchra 1, 2, 3, grew faster than pulchra pulchra 4, 5, 6. It is irrelevant to compare it with another species universally-acknowledged to grow faster even when fed twice a month because presented with the same optimal conditionals the pulchra subjects in this thread were given, that species (non-pulchra)will grow faster yet. The conversation is on an intraspecific level only.
> 
> @miss moxie it might not be that basic. If it was, everyone pulchras will be growing up to 5.5 inches in a single year by now. Even yours took 3 years to become a juvenile. OP mentioned a lot of food. But how much? Is it enough to challenge the belief of most to feed only twice or once a week. Because for all we know the OP fed daily.
> 
> If faster growth occurs under optimal conditionals (1 year growth spurt), will that render our husbandry conditions "sub-optimal" because ours grow take twice or thrice as longer?


I purchased her as a juvenile. You're also taking OP's words on faith. The fact that -one- person has produced these results and no one else has should be all you need to realize it's hinky.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

miss moxie said:


> I purchased her as a juvenile. You're also taking OP's words on faith. The fact that -one- person has produced these results and no one else has should be all you need to realize it's hinky.


The OP seemed to be no different from most of you here, with years of experience behind his back. It appears everyone knew him too. No reason to think he's a fraud.


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

Ungoliant said:


> I have not experienced anything with my two pulchras to suggest that they aren't the slow growers they are reputed to be.
> 
> When we talk about fast growers versus slow growers, we are necessarily comparing different species. Can you make a pulchra (or any other tarantula) grow faster by keeping it warm and feeding it more? Sure. That has been known for years.
> 
> ...



I dont understand why you need to bring up other species in a intraspecific (pulchra-only) test? Under good wind conditions, will the sparrow fly as fast as the falcon? Of course not, because under good wind conditions, the falcon will fly faster yet than the falcon who is not under good wind conditions, and who in turn is already faster than the sparrow by default.

When fertilizer is used, will this orange grow as red as those apples? Of course not, because apples are by default red already.

Will this G. pulchra, under optimal conditions grow was fast as P. murinus. Heck no. Because P. murinus by default already grows twice as fast. Example P. murinus normal growth rate: 30 days. Pulchra growth rate: 60 days. With optimal conditions: murinus, 15 days. Pulchra, 30 each grew 50% faster.

However what you are are asking if can the pulchra take 15 days like the murinus? Which is not fair because the murinus remains at 50% (15 from 30 days)faster while you want the pulchra to be 75% (15 days from 60) faster to acknowledge the point.

The question really is, "By the standard of the Grammostola pulchra species ONLY, did it grow fast?". And the answer is yes.


----------



## The Grym Reaper (Sep 30, 2017)

efmp1987 said:


> The question really is, "By the standard of the Grammostola specie ONLY, did it grow fast?". And the answer is yes.


It's one of the slower growing species out of its genus, that is fact, I could keep a Grammostola iheringi in a cool room and feed it half as often as I would normally and keep a Grammostola pulchra in a warm room and feed it twice as often as I would normally, the Grammostola pulchra still won't outgrow the Grammostola iheringi, hell, it won't even outgrow a Grammostola pulchripes.

You can get the pulchra to grow slightly faster than it would normally if you ramp up its temps and feed more often but it won't magically become a fast-growing species, it's only marginally faster compared to other pulchra, not other Grammostola.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

The Grym Reaper said:


> It's one of the slower growing species out of its genus, that is fact, I could keep a Grammostola iheringi in a cool room and feed it half as often as I would normally and keep a Grammostola pulchra in a warm room and feed it twice as often as I would normally, the Grammostola pulchra still won't outgrow the Grammostola iheringi, hell, it won't even outgrow a Grammostola pulchripes.
> 
> You can get the pulchra to grow slightly faster than it would normally if you ramp up its temps and feed more often but it won't magically become a fast-growing species, it's only marginally faster compared to other pulchra, not other Grammostola.



Corrected my post above. I meant by the standards of the Grammostola pulchra species only. Im on mobile to its hard to type. I also noted how you cannot compare species 1 with species 2 due to morphological physiological ecological adpatations.


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

So by the standards of the Grammostola pulchra species only, did the OPs specimen grow faster? 1 year vs 3 years?


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 30, 2017)

efmp1987 said:


> So by the standards of the Grammostola pulchra species only, did the OPs specimen grow faster? 1 year vs 3 years?


What I'm saying is that if no one else around here is reporting that, then either OP got lucky or something is hinky with his story. You can't do an experiment once and then say "This is proof that this is a definite thing and I proved it!"


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

miss moxie said:


> What I'm saying is that if no one else around here is reporting that, then either OP got lucky or something is hinky with his story. You can't do an experiment once and then say "This is proof that this is a definite thing and I proved it!"



Hence I necro'ed the thread. So people can try - I myself will try. And If no one else is reporting it, they're probably not very accepting of change and are strictly adhering to known husbandry methods e.g. "don't overfeed that or this, it will cause molt problems" or "feed it only twice a week" etc., when the hard truth is no study has been conducted to associate bad molting with feeding frequency, nor is there a study to prove that increased feeding shortens the lifespan of an arachnid. @KezyGLA for example has some of the fattest T's I have seen on here and his T's in fact look very healthy with the vibrant coloration as compared to some T's that while are lithe in appearance, look dull nonetheless. IMO increased feeding simply improves the size increase after each molt, hence specimens of the same species, from the same clutch, or of the same age bracket or even of the same sex, will show marked differences in size despite undergoing molting the same number of times, which is attributed to the tendency of some to be complete pigs where food is concerned.


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 30, 2017)

This is what I mean when I say people need patience to do well in this hobby. Forcing your G. pulchra to speed grow is for your benefit and your benefit alone. I'm content with my small G. pulchra and her slow growth rate. If you want a fast growing grammy, purchase a G. iheringi.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## The Grym Reaper (Sep 30, 2017)

miss moxie said:


> If you want a fast growing grammy, purchase a G. iheringi.


Or if you just want a fast growing big black tarantula then get a female P. antinous.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## miss moxie (Sep 30, 2017)

The Grym Reaper said:


> Or if you just want a fast growing big black tarantula then get a female P. antinous.


I've got three P. antinous slings. I love pamphs!!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

miss moxie said:


> This is what I mean when I say people need patience to well in this hobby. Forcing your G. pulchra to speed grow is for your benefit and your benefit alone. I'm content with my small G. pulchra and her slow growth rate. If you want a fast growing grammy, purchase a G. iheringi.


How are we so sure faster growth doesn't benefit them? Pulchras being slow-growing might be captivity-induced due to keepers reluctance to feed them to their hearts content as increased feeding is frowned upon generally-speaking (not accepting of change). Prey insects aren't exactly scarce in the wild, and definitely not in a place as diverse as Brazil. Being a slow-growing invertebrate in the wild is also counter-adaptive and increases their risk of being predated upon by other life forms.


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

The Grym Reaper said:


> Or if you just want a fast growing big black tarantula then get a female P. antinous.



You missed the point. The point is, under certain conditions, pulchra can grow fast too. This thread wasn't put up to discuss which black T grows fast.

Reactions: Lollipop 1


----------



## nicodimus22 (Sep 30, 2017)

efmp1987 said:


> Prey insects aren't exactly scarce in the wild, and definitely not in a place as diverse as Brazil.


Every time someone brings up conditions in the wild, I just want to 

Tarantula mortality SUCKS ASS in the wild. Over 90% die before they can breed. We should be creating ideal conditions, not trying to mimic what they encounter in nature.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

nicodimus22 said:


> Every time someone brings up conditions in the wild, I just want to


You are contradicting the norm that one must not feed T's daily because in the wild they can sometimes go for months without finding food (which can be true, or not at all). But as noted above, its folly to think insect prey is scarce in a place like Brazil.



nicodimus22 said:


> Tarantula mortality SUCKS ASS in the wild. Over 90% die before they can breed. *We should be creating ideal conditions, not trying to mimic what they encounter in nature*.


And what is ideal? Feeding more? Or feeding less? More facilitates growth. Less delays it. Ideal is a positive word. Which then is ideal, delaying growth, or facilitating it?


----------



## nicodimus22 (Sep 30, 2017)

efmp1987 said:


> And what is ideal? Feeding more? Or feeding less? More facilitates growth. Less stunts it. Ideal is a positive word. Which then is positive, stunting growth, or facilitating it?


People have been arguing about this since the beginning of time, and they probably will for a long time. There is no exact formula to follow. It seems sensible to me to avoid either extreme, though.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

nicodimus22 said:


> There is no exact formula to follow. It seems sensible to me to avoid either extreme, though.


Correct. There is no exact formula. But have you noticed the trend? People speak of the implications of feeding frequency like it was based from a much-thorough scientific research, when it is not.

Edit: Change is nice.


----------



## Olan (Sep 30, 2017)

My larger G. pulchra female is growing way faster than my brachypelmas. My smaller pulchra is growing more like Brachypelma speed. The big one doesn't have long premolt either. She once ate just a couple days before she molted, which was only one month after her last molt (she was around 2.5" at the time). That was a very surprising molt, her second one with me. So maybe there is the occasional fast growing female that starts big arguments like this

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Olan (Sep 30, 2017)

Looked back at some old photos. This is when I was unpacking her April 25th, 2017:

This is her tonight (I don't make a habit of handling, but I couldn't resist for comparison)
View attachment 253575

That is actually a ton of growth. I didn't realize it was quite that dramatic

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

Olan said:


> Looked back at some old photos. This is when I was unpacking her April 25th, 2017:
> 
> This is her tonight (I don't make a habit of handling, but I couldn't resist for comparison)
> View attachment 253575
> ...



You lie. Thats no pulchra. Thats an african bush pig.


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

Olan said:


> Looked back at some old photos. This is when I was unpacking her April 25th, 2017:
> 
> This is her tonight (I don't make a habit of handling, but I couldn't resist for comparison)
> View attachment 253575
> ...


Mines I think in pre-molt again (molted about 40 days ago). It did not venture out of its burrow since this morning. Just now it's starting to bury half of it's body like a flounder in the substrate.


----------



## Ungoliant (Sep 30, 2017)

efmp1987 said:


> The topic is the hastened growth rate of the pulchra species only, and pulchra alone. How pulchra 1, 2, 3, grew faster than pulchra pulchra 4, 5, 6. . . . The conversation is on an intraspecific level only.


If the sole point of this thread was demonstrate that you can make a _Grammostola pulchra_ grow faster by keeping it at warmer temperatures and feeding it more, that is not news. That is true of all tarantulas.

A post like that is about as "groundbreaking" as announcing that one has discovered that weight training increases strength.




efmp1987 said:


> I dont understand why you need to bring up other species in a intraspecific (pulchra-only) test? Under good wind conditions, will the sparrow fly as fast as the falcon?


Because that is what people mean when they categorize a species as being a fast or slow grower -- it is relative to an average growth rate across different species (and in many cases to the keeper's own experience of different species).

I am keeping my entire collection at the same temperature, and absent pre-molt fasts, I feed them all on roughly the same schedule. The two pulchras are easily the slowest growing tarantulas I have. If I warmed them all up and fed them more, they would still be the slowest growing tarantulas I have.




efmp1987 said:


> If faster growth occurs under optimal conditionals (1 year growth spurt), will that render our husbandry conditions "sub-optimal" because ours take twice or thrice as longer to grow?


It depends on your definition of optimal. If you define optimal solely by rate of growth, then you would consider any conditions that slow the rate of growth to be sub-optimal. (Although it's worth noting that the community rarely agrees on one "best" way to keep any species. We just have collective experience on methods that work and methods that don't.)

Just because a species is a slow grower doesn't mean it's an undesirable species. I get a lot of enjoyment out of all of my tarantulas, and Bulldozer is among my favorites. It also makes it that much more special when you finally do have a large adult.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Olan (Sep 30, 2017)

Looks like my images didn't work. Here she is before and after 5 months of growth

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## efmp1987 (Sep 30, 2017)

Olan said:


> Looks like my images didn't work. Here she is before and after 5 months of growth
> View attachment 253586
> 
> View attachment 253587



Huuge increase in 5 months!

Reactions: Agree 1


----------

