Wet Bulb + SADS

[YungRasputin]

Because, like I said, it doesn't matter if your enclosure is kept at 20°C or 28°C, if it's too moist (usually via excessive misting) and there isn't enough ventilation then the Avic will die regardless.

yes, excess moisture is a problem and has led to deaths in Avics, that’s not in dispute; i still don’t see how temp is irrelevant when it effects relative humidity/air moisture

No, it doesn't, at best it's a misnomer. A syndrome is a collection of symptoms with no known cause, what people call "Sudden Avic Death Syndrome" is just the Avic dying (one symptom) due to improper husbandry (known cause).

“SADS” in this case is a euphemism for a particular set of bad husbandry habits and enclosure conditions - the facts that we are discussing it is proof that it exists - discounting this because you’re choosing to take a literal reading of the name seems strange

ultimately if ‘wet bulb’ conditions don’t exist in this case, so be it - this isn’t an exercise in confirmation bias but still, ground level science is not “over-complication”

 

[Malum Argenteum]

this is literally like claiming that water parameters is an over-complication of fish keeping because all you need is “water and fish” instead of seeing it as beneficial knowledge which informs better keeping

No, that's not an accurate analogy at all (reefkeeper of three decades here). Without measuring water parameters, many fishkeeping problems simply cannot be diagnosed, or at least cannot be diagnosed simply. But dead Avics in sealed moist boxes can with nearly 100% accuracy be diagnosed without measuring humidity or temp.

The (well, my) resistance to overcomplicating care -- that is, taking a well-understood and childishly simply to implement part of care* and adding in equipment and 'phenomena' and likely mathematical formulae -- is that it has been proven to kill animals (thinking here of herps). People chasing humidity numbers kills animals, because (a) hygrometers aren't accurate more than +/- 5% out of the box, and they get easily damaged/made wildly inaccurate by moisture exposure, and (b) hygrometers are impossible to use accurately in a tiny enclosure that has a range of humidity between sub and vent holes from 100% down to ambient, and (c) many, many keepers (especially novice keepers, who are the usual target audience for these algorithmic husbandry protocols) see a "too low" or "too high" or "too variable" humidity number and either overcorrect or make a correction that leads to some other problem (e.g. swampy substrate, or excessive temps).

The keepers who are resistant to these 'digital' outlooks are mostly those who have been caring for a wide range of animals for a long time, and have seen the harms that come from getting away from observing animals and moving toward looking at meters.

* "Papa, Princess Spidey's box doesn't have as many holes as the one in the picture on that forum we like. Can we make her a new box with more holes after naptime?"

 

[YungRasputin]

No, that's not an accurate analogy at all (reefkeeper of three decades here).

we’ll see, i believe it to be so (tropical fish keeper)

Without measuring water parameters, many fishkeeping problems simply cannot be diagnosed, or at least cannot be diagnosed simply.

and why would this not likewise extend to terrarium based fauna? in both cases we’re talking about artificially created biomes and to me, it would seem, that it would behoove the keeper to consider what are the material conditions of the enclosure/biome

But dead Avics in sealed moist boxes can with nearly 100% accuracy be diagnosed without measuring humidity or temp.

we’ve established this - this thread was about a) whether or not the created conditions constitute the ‘wet bulb’ phenomena or something else

The (well, my) resistance to overcomplicating care -- that is, taking a well-understood and childishly simply to implement part of care* and adding in equipment and 'phenomena' and likely mathematical formulae

wouldn’t over-simplification and assumptive knowledge be just as detrimental to the overall health of the specimen as “over-complication”? wouldn’t this breed a stagnant mindset where all suggestions of improvement are discarded (as they are so often on this forum)?

is that it has been proven to kill animals (thinking here of herps). People chasing humidity numbers kills animals, because (a) hygrometers aren't accurate more than +/- 5% out of the box, and they get easily damaged/made wildly inaccurate by moisture exposure, and (b) hygrometers are impossible to use accurately in a tiny enclosure that has a range of humidity between sub and vent holes from 100% down to ambient

while, as with everything, there is a range of error that does not however go on to mean that they’re useless or that such things are meaningless because people don’t know how to properly utilize the tools available - I’ve been able to use such devices to create ‘optimal medians’ and it’s not been that complicated nor am I chasing some specific range rather i set up the biome to be within an optimal range of humidity, heat, etc

perhaps if such things were explained to new people instead of people saying “humidity, air moisture, etc none of that actually matters” then less Avics would die of exaggerated conditions (whether we’re talking about an overly dry box or overly moist box)

and (c) many, many keepers (especially novice keepers, who are the usual target audience for these algorithmic husbandry protocols) see a "too low" or "too high" or "too variable" humidity number and either overcorrect or make a correction that leads to some other problem (e.g. swampy substrate, or excessive temps).

which would be less of a problem if experienced keepers properly instructed new keepers when they ask questions on this particular topic - as we both know, fish keeping isn’t about a magic number it’s about optimal ranges; the same applies to arachnids - there’s a range in which they thrive and falling out of that individual specific range could create problems, or, worse, have fatal consequences

balance is always key

The keepers who are resistant to these 'digital' outlooks are mostly those who have been caring for a wide range of animals for a long time, and have seen the harms that come from getting away from observing animals and moving toward looking at meters.

as I’ve said in other threads, I’ve been keeping arachnids successfully for 26+ years; observation in combination with assessing the enclosure’s material conditions, has been instrumental in that successful keeping - one can easily consider multiple variables at once and from that decide how to make the best call; this reckoning, is what defines us as keepers really

eg: the care sheets for some old fossorial asiatic species that I’ve seen have talked about +80% humidity, from there i factor in that the humidity underground will be less than what it is on the surface, i then take into consideration the margin of error in devices and come up with a better, perhaps more accurate figure range, hovering around 65% - this doesn’t include any math, is just a reasonable guesstimation (being able to take it from reasonable guesstimation to accurate assessment is my goal tbh)

 

[cold blood]

SADS” does exist tho

Nope, it most certainly does not....regardless of how many times you hear about it. The entire notion of SADS is urtterly preposterous.

 

[YungRasputin]

Nope, it most certainly does not....regardless of how many times you hear about it. The entire notion of SADS is urtterly preposterous.

yes, yes it is - it’s not a biological reality specific to the species, however it is an observable trend or ‘phenomena’ characterized by bad husbandry, poor information and dead specimens - why deny that? for what purpose? logically, to deny this, is to say that the history of bad husbandry practices relating to Avics in the past never took place, the people that discussed this don’t exist and the discussions themselves never took place, and that I, specifically, invented the term “SADS” and pulled it out of thin air to introduce to the forum

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

it is an observable trend or ‘phenomena’ characterized by bad husbandry

So, by that statement, it should be called "STDS" (Sudden Tarantula Death Syndrome). Poor husbandry may includes all Theraphosidae. In fact, all Arachnida kept in captivity, not only Avicularia spp.
SADS is a myth.

 

[YungRasputin]

So, by that statement, it should be called "STDS" (Sudden Tarantula Death Syndrome). Poor husbandry may includes all Theraphosidae. In fact, all Arachnida kept in captivity, not only Avicularia spp.

this silly and not in the way i think you intended my friend

SADS is a myth.

you’re right, the term started with me - i invented it specifically to annoy the people of this forum, you’re welcome

 

[cold blood]

it’s not a biological reality specific to the species, however it is an observable trend or ‘phenomena’ characterized by bad husbandry, poor information and dead specimens

So by what I just quoted above, you clearly note this is not some kind of medical condition, rather a result of keepers doing something wrong.

So you want to create a syndrome, that is based on bad practiced by the humans keeping them? That makes no sense....this syndrome you speak of, has nothing to do with the spider. Its like saying dogs hit by cars died of sudden dog death syndrome.

why deny that?

You act as if we are denying that gravity exists or something...lol.

To not deny SADS exists is to ignore that past husbandry for Avics was all wrong and that most of us have fixed that husbandry and realized that Avics are actually pretty darn hardy.

to deny this, is to say that the history of bad husbandry practices relating to Avics in the past never took place,

No, to deny it means we recognize that it wasn't the spiders, but it was us and our bad husbandry understanding.

and that I, specifically, invented the term “SADS” and pulled it out of thin air to introduce to the forum

I am not even sure you believe this statement...it gets the same reaction over and over in recent years......no one thinks its your statement, everyone has heard of it as it was a common thing back in the day when we thought our husbandry was spot on, and therefore had no answer for these seemingly sudden deaths (which are almost never sudden except for the actual death part, which could always be construed as sudden).

Now we know it was us and not the spiders, therefore we now know that it was not actually a syndrome or even an unexplained death, it was just our misunderstanding of the genus.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

So by what I just quoted above, you clearly note this is not some kind of medical condition, rather a result of keepers doing something wrong.

So you want to create a syndrome, that is based on bad practiced by the humans keeping them? That makes no sense....this syndrome you speak of, has nothing to do with the spider. Its like saying dogs hit by cars died of sudden dog death syndrome.


You act as if we are denying that gravity exists or something...lol.

To not deny SADS exists is to ignore that past husbandry for Avics was all wrong and that most of us have fixed that husbandry and realized that Avics are actually pretty darn hardy.



No, to deny it means we recognize that it wasn't the spiders, but it was us and our bad husbandry understanding.

I am not even sure you believe this statement...it gets the same reaction over and over in recent years......no one thinks its your statement, everyone has heard of it as it was a common thing back in the day when we thought our husbandry was spot on, and therefore had no answer for these seemingly sudden deaths (which are almost never sudden except for the actual death part, which could always be construed as sudden).

Now we know it was us and not the spiders, therefore we now know that it was not actually a syndrome or even an unexplained death, it was just our misunderstanding of the genus.

Spot on. And we can say all of this to many other species that died because we didn't get their husbandry, and yet, don't have a "sudden death syndrome" related to them.

 

[YungRasputin]

So by what I just quoted above, you clearly note this is not some kind of medical condition, rather a result of keepers doing something wrong.

ja

So you want to create a syndrome, that is based on bad practiced by the humans keeping them? That makes no sense....this syndrome you speak of, has nothing to do with the spider. Its like saying dogs hit by cars died of sudden dog death syndrome.

no, it’s using an already existent term, as being exemplary of a certain set of (bad) husbandry patterns, and doing so, metaphorically, not literally - as evidenced by this thread, everyone recognizes that it’s not a biological conditions but bad husbandry

You act as if we are denying that gravity exists or something...lol.

not a bad comparison given that people are denying something which objectively exists

To not deny SADS exists is to ignore that past husbandry for Avics was all wrong and that most of us have fixed that husbandry and realized that Avics are actually pretty darn hardy.

“SADS” doesn’t exist, this improper husbandry trend didn’t exist but somehow everyone fixed it? how’s that follow?

No, to deny it means we recognize that it wasn't the spiders, but it was us and our bad husbandry understanding.

yes, exactly - it describes not a biological reality but erroneous behavior patterns

 

[Malum Argenteum]

thoughts?

Which thoughts exactly are you willing to take on board? Because so far, everything's been rebuffed.

I find this constant refrain on this forum of “over-complication” to be both inane and annoying

Also, which thoughts are going to be met with insult? A list would be helpful, since I don't really like being asked for my thoughts and then told they're inane. Unsurprisingly.

 

[YungRasputin]

Which thoughts exactly are you willing to take on board? Because so far, everything's been rebuffed.

really? because following Grym Reaper’s comments I posted a comment which said specifically that perhaps this (“SADS”) didn’t meet the requirements of what is called “wet bulb” and that this thread is decidedly not an exercise in confirmation bias - this was me more or less conceding the original argument because if documented temps are not excessively high, and it’s moisture alone, then i’m not sure if it would fit the parameters of “wet bulb”

Also, which thoughts are going to be met with insult? A list would be helpful, since I don't really like being asked for my thoughts and then told they're inane. Unsurprisingly.

i reciprocate what i am given - passive aggressive laugh reacts, dismissing everything i’m saying out of hand, type-casting my posts as being “over-complications,” unnecessary sardonicism, etc doesn’t really motivate me to respond neutrally (unsurprisingly)

i don’t care to be wrong, how people approach that wrongness in response is what I usually take issue with - you can say someone is wrong because X, Y, and Z reasons without being overly emotive, arrogant and dismissive