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.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.
Every time someone brings up conditions in the wild, I just want toPrey insects aren't exactly scarce in the wild, and definitely not in a place as diverse as Brazil.
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.Every time someone brings up conditions in the wild, I just want to
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?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.
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.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?
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.There is no exact formula to follow. It seems sensible to me to avoid either extreme, though.
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.
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.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.
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 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?
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.)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?