Artificial food?

[zonbonzovi]

Mod note

:fury::fury::fury::fury:

I guess a few of you here have forgotten the notion of a "civil debate". You want to disagree with someone? Great! That's acceptable. However, personal attacks of any sort are not welcome, at all! I don't even understand why I have to remind anyone of this. It's clearly stated in the rules of this forum. If it's not adhered to the instigators will be subjected to a vacation and eventually a permanent ban. Understood? Good.

Furthermore, this behavior is a symptom of your perceived anonymity. Consider the consequences of your actions if you weren't sitting comfortably behind a keyboard and act as such. Thanks for wasting my time, again.

 

[prairiepanda]

Interesting. What is considered complete nutrition? What is meat missing that crickets have?

We don't know what "complete nutrition" is for a tarantula, as (to my knowledge) there hasn't been any substantial research done on the subject. However, there are some things we can safely assume based on what we do know. Observations have suggested that invertebrate prey is the staple diet of wild Ts, so we can assume that they have evolved to reap the maximum benefit from such prey as opposed to "meaty" prey. After that, the biggest problem is the fact that any given piece of meat represents only a speciallized organ of an animal and contains only nutrients relevant to the purpose of that particular organ. So a strip of meat, given to any carnivore, can never been nutritionally complete unless the carnivore has evolved to live on only that specific part of the prey. A whole vertebrate prey item, such as a small rodent or lizard, might be nutritionally "complete" but not have the ratio of nutrients necessary. Ratios are important, as having too much or too little of anything can have severe consequences.

 

[ClosetCollector]

We don't know what "complete nutrition" is for a tarantula, as (to my knowledge) there hasn't been any substantial research done on the subject. However, there are some things we can safely assume based on what we do know. Observations have suggested that invertebrate prey is the staple diet of wild Ts, so we can assume that they have evolved to reap the maximum benefit from such prey as opposed to "meaty" prey. After that, the biggest problem is the fact that any given piece of meat represents only a speciallized organ of an animal and contains only nutrients relevant to the purpose of that particular organ. So a strip of meat, given to any carnivore, can never been nutritionally complete unless the carnivore has evolved to live on only that specific part of the prey. A whole vertebrate prey item, such as a small rodent or lizard, might be nutritionally "complete" but not have the ratio of nutrients necessary. Ratios are important, as having too much or too little of anything can have severe consequences.

I have to respectfully disagree with your statement, Tarantulas may not traditionally eat "meaty" prey in captivity. However, in the wild their diet differs from captive bred specimens. Tarantulas are carnivores, meaning they consume meat, what you or I consider meat IE pork beef, ETC is not the only meat present on the planet currently. Inverts such as crickets, worms amphibians and small reptiles are considered "meaty" prey items, to tarantulas. Ratios are important but I believe in my opinion you are not in the position nor are any of us in the position to say they are not nutritionally complete for tarantulas or any other species of animals. For the sake of argument I would suggest finding an article to support your claims that way any dispute may be argued scientifically VS personally... There are tons of articles to support the tarantula diet in captivity and the wild. none f us are the ultimate authority on tarantula nutrition and arguing about it will get us nowhere... For every one thing we think we know about tarantulas, there are 1,000 things we do not and there is always an exception to that rule....

 

[prairiepanda]

Inverts such as crickets, worms amphibians and small reptiles are considered "meaty" prey items, to tarantulas.

I think you've misunderstood me. By "meaty" prey I meant vertebrates, so amphibians, reptiles, and rodents would be included in that. Tarantulas do indeed eat these in the wild, but as I said observation of tarantulas in the wild(by both hobbyists and scientists) has suggested that vertebrates make up only a small portion of their diet. This assumption is not based on any scientific research, but simply on reports by reputable people. I do not know how many species this can be applied to, though.

Ratios are important but I believe in my opinion you are not in the position nor are any of us in the position to say they are not nutritionally complete for tarantulas or any other species of animals. For the sake of argument I would suggest finding an article to support your claims that way any dispute may be argued scientifically VS personally... There are tons of articles to support the tarantula diet in captivity and the wild. none f us are the ultimate authority on tarantula nutrition and arguing about it will get us nowhere...

As far as I know, there aren't any articles to support my claim. I would be very interested in seeing the articles you mentioned regarding tarantula diet, as I have thus far been unable to find anything significant. But please understand that I was only outlining assumptions that can be made based on a few facts, not outright truths that have been tested or proven. It is quite possible that a tarantula might be able to live happily on a vertebrate-based diet just as easily as an insect-based diet, but based on current knowledge this is unlikely. The fact is, we really don't know what the right ratios are for them. What we do know is that insects and vertebrates are drastically different nutrition-wise. So no, I cannot "prove" my standpoint, but I believe it is reasonable.

That said, I do however insist that pieces of meat would certainly never constitute a complete diet on their own. You don't appear to have questioned that part, but if you'd like I can actually find ample scientific evidence to back my claim in that regard.

 

[LordWaffle]

Perhaps more importantly, in this case assuming the opposite is the case just because there aren't any scientific journals with studies on the topic is just as erroneous as making a baseless assumption about meat to tarantulas. That said, being insectivores (not carnivorous in nature as you said) means that tarantulas likely get much more in the way of "proper" nutrition from crickets, roaches, and whatever other arthropod crosses their path rather than mice, small reptiles and amphibians or a hunk of your T-bone scraps. Insects an any vertebrate have vastly different structures that make up their bodies (blood, muscles, ligaments, bone, triglycerides vs chitin, hemolymph, etc). There's certainly more evidence for insects being more nutritionally sound than vertebrates than vice versa.

I'm not saying vertebrate prey is bad for Ts or that they get nothing out of it. In fact, I'd be more inclined to say they get plenty out of it. Just saying that the evidence available points to inverts being more important to their diet, whether that be for nutrition or solely because they're generally easier prey.

 

[prairiepanda]

That said, being insectivores (not carnivorous in nature as you said)

Okay, wait, you just blew my mind. I was always under the impression that insectivores were a type of carnivore. I thought "carn" related to animal flesh(and insects being animals would then be included)? Or should I be associating the word "carnivore" with order Carnivora? Sorry, I've never seen such a distinction...

 

[LordWaffle]

Okay, wait, you just blew my mind. I was always under the impression that insectivores were a type of carnivore. I thought "carn" related to animal flesh(and insects being animals would then be included)? Or should I be associating the word "carnivore" with order Carnivora? Sorry, I've never seen such a distinction...

Insectivores are carnivores, I could have worded it differently (read: better). They're a specific type of carnivore. Carnivore can mean a lot of things when it comes I dietary requirements. Ultimately saying that somethig can eat any kind of meat because it's a carnivore is a huge generalization.

 

[prairiepanda]

Insectivores are carnivores, I could have worded it differently. They're a specific type of carnivore. Carnivore can mean a lot of things when it comes I dietary requirements. Ultimately saying that somethig can eat any kind of meat because it's a carnivore is a huge generalization.

Thanks for clarifying. You're right, I should have been a bit more specific. I agree with you completely.

 

[LordWaffle]

My initial response was more of a blend of responses to you and CloseCollector, I think when I mentioned the insectivore thing I was speaking to her response that seemed to imply that all meat was equally nutritious to spiders because they're carnivorous; therefore, there's no way insects are more complete nutritionally. I was trying to say there's no certainty either way, but the available evidence seems to point to insects being more complete for
It.

 

[oooo35980]

I'm just guessing here, but I would assume that since in the wild Ts eat whatever they happen to come across, their dietary requirements aren't exactly stringent. All the talk about "complete nutrition" makes me think of a T. blondi reading the back of a package of crickets before eating it so he doesn't spoil his diet.

Furthermore Ts in the wild tend to be larger than captive ones, correct? So it's altogether possible crickets and other invert food items alone are not "nutritionally complete" and it's having some effect on the ultimate size of captive Ts.

What I've gathered from this thread is that our knowledge of a Ts dietary requirements amounts to hardly anything at all.

 

[viper69]

Everybody knows Ts are constantly taking down cows on farms in Brazil!

 

[Blut und ehre]

Hahahahahaha no way!!!

everybody knows ts are constantly taking down cows on farms in brazil! :d

 

[prairiepanda]

I'm just guessing here, but I would assume that since in the wild Ts eat whatever they happen to come across, their dietary requirements aren't exactly stringent. All the talk about "complete nutrition" makes me think of a T. blondi reading the back of a package of crickets before eating it so he doesn't spoil his diet.

Furthermore Ts in the wild tend to be larger than captive ones, correct? So it's altogether possible crickets and other invert food items alone are not "nutritionally complete" and it's having some effect on the ultimate size of captive Ts.

What I've gathered from this thread is that our knowledge of a Ts dietary requirements amounts to hardly anything at all.

Your last statement there is dead on Everything here is speculation, but that's how all science starts out, no?

You make a valid point that Ts would probably benefit more from a varied diet than a diet of just one species of prey. But even an opportunistic predator like a tarantula will have evolved to benefit from the type of prey that is easiest/most common for them to acquire, in this case insects. (Although I'm still not sure how accurate our information is regarding tarantula prey types is--perhaps someone else can chime in on this)

 

[viper69]

Hahahahahaha no way!!!

OF course they are, that's why the price of McDonald's keeps increasing!

 

[Blut und ehre]

HAHAHAHHAHAH DAMM !!!! I never thought of that!!! those bast%$ds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OF course they are, that's why the price of McDonald's keeps increasing!

 

[viper69]

HAHAHAHHAHAH DAMM !!!! I never thought of that!!! those bast%$ds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ts are sneaky little critters. They are nocturnal primarily, climb on virtually any surface, they don't care about synthetic food, they are sneaking away w/those Brazilian cows at night!

All seriousness aside, I'd be surprised if there were any significant amount of field biology research, you know REAL science, on wild T diets.

 

[Blut und ehre]

Well ...That is kind of what is funny about what is going on here.....While I've read and respect everybody's answers and opinions on this topic [even if I disagree!!!] There is no use in "punching.....or scratching each others eyes out" ,,...over pure speculation!! As far as I know there hasn't been any "giant strides" or "concrete"evidence from studies done of Ts diets in the wild. Nothing that is "written in stone" anyway?!?!
I could be wrong??

Ts are sneaky little critters. They are nocturnal primarily, climb on virtually any surface, they don't care about synthetic food, they are sneaking away w/those Brazilian cows at night!

All seriousness aside, I'd be surprised if there were any significant amount of field biology research, you know REAL science, on wild T diets.

 

[viper69]

Well ...That is kind of what is funny about what is going on here.....While I've read and respect everybody's answers and opinions on this topic [even if I disagree!!!] There is no use in "punching.....or scratching each others eyes out" ,,...over pure speculation!! As far as I know there hasn't been any "giant strides" or "concrete"evidence from studies done of Ts diets in the wild. Nothing that is "written in stone" anyway?!?!
I could be wrong??

I know 1 person that would know, he's an arachnologist.

 

[Blut und ehre]

Has he or she spent years in the field studying T diets?? and nutrition?

I know 1 person that would know, he's an arachnologist.

 

[LordWaffle]

It's definitely something I'd like to be able to know more about, though it's unlikely.