# Can dart frog eat anything else besides living bugs?



## kenstyles (Sep 11, 2013)

Just curious if frogs can eat tiny pellets, fruits or vegitables?

I know the food has to be moving...how about on a vibrating dish?

Just curious because I bought a few FF cultures from a show and I had to order more today because I'm almost out.

just worried that I would run out of food one day in the winter.

Ken


----------



## Reef_Haven (Jan 19, 2011)

No,
but we all know the secret of magically turning fruits and vegitables into more bugs.

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/food-feeding/124194-how-i-culture-my-food.html
here's a start.


----------



## mfsidore (Oct 10, 2012)

kenstyles said:


> Just curious if frogs can eat tiny pellets, fruits or vegitables?
> 
> I know the food has to be moving...how about on a vibrating dish?
> 
> ...


I think I have a vibrating dish idea...


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

As previously mentioned, they'll only go after live food that's moving. They will not eat anything plant-related. I'm also fairly certain (like cats) that they can't digest plants.

If you're running out, culturing your own fruit flies is much cheaper than ordering new flies every time. Several sponsors sell supplies for this:

New England Herpetoculture LLC - Insect Breeding Kits
Fruit Fly Culture Kits to Culture Fruit Flies | Josh's Frogs


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

The only way to assure your frogs have a constant supply of food is to culture ff's yourself. I highly suggest you learn how to do this and quickly.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Yes you need to learn to culture your own fruit flies, various vendors have kits, you should order one it comes with everything you need f a couple months of fruit flies. 

However on the specific subject I remember reading many years ago of some minor successes with people getting objects to move such as attaching food to a string and twisting it or things like that. But this sort of suggestion would be for very advanced hobby, if you don't have fruit flies already that is probably not where you are right now.


----------



## oddlot (Jun 28, 2010)

Pubfiction said:


> Yes you need to learn to culture your own fruit flies, various vendors have kits, you should order one it comes with everything you need f a couple months of fruit flies.
> 
> However on the specific subject I remember reading many years ago of some minor successes with people getting objects to move such as attaching food to a string and twisting it or things like that. But this sort of suggestion would be for very advanced hobby, if you don't have fruit flies already that is probably not where you are right now.


Why would you want to try and feed a frog with food tied to a string?An advanced frogger would have enough live food and not need to do that and you wouldn't want a frog to eat string at all.


----------



## goof901 (Jan 9, 2012)

oddlot said:


> Why would you want to try and feed a frog with food tied to a string?An advanced frogger would have enough live food and not need to do that and you wouldn't want a frog to eat string at all.


Feeding with a string sounds awful. Considering how small the food items are, it would take forever to feed the frog. Much better to let the flies use their own energy to get eaten, instead of wasting mine...  haha but seriously, flies are really easy to culture on your own, one or two times and you have it down. Once you make the culture, then it's a hands off operation. Just let the flies do their thing and you get more flies.


----------



## tbhf (Jul 31, 2006)

Nope! Get your fruit fly cultures going before you get frogs.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

goof901 said:


> Feeding with a string sounds awful. Considering how small the food items are, it would take forever to feed the frog.


Not to mention that having the frogs swallow the string sounds really dangerous to their health....


----------



## oddlot (Jun 28, 2010)

hypostatic said:


> Not to mention that having the frogs swallow the string sounds really dangerous to their health....


That was the point I was trying to make too.


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

This was a decent thread on culturing flies. http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/food-feeding/62277-guide-making-ff-cultures.html

Here's one for springtails and isopods. http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/food-feeding/66991-how-culture-isopods-woodlice-springtails.html


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

Hey Ken, I can't help but notice you sound new to frogs. I only say that because you aren't culturing flies yet. Anyway, if a hobbyist had taught you, he would have taught you to culture before you had frogs. This leads me to wonder if anyone has shared the importance of a proper calcium/vitamin dusting powder with you?
They need to have the flies dusted at every feeding. It is important that they get a supplement with a USABLE form of vitamin A. That means it needs to be a preformed vitamin A (Retinol). Many supplements on the market so NOT have a proper vitamin A for frogs. 
I use Repashy Calcium Plus for an all in one dusting powder. You can consider dusting with Repashy SuperPig and Repashy Vitamin A Plus, each once a month, in addition to the regular fly dustings of Calcium Plus.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

oddlot said:


> Why would you want to try and feed a frog with food tied to a string?An advanced frogger would have enough live food and not need to do that and you wouldn't want a frog to eat string at all.


Back in those days there was no internet and lots of junk you guys think is easy and basic was not so easy to come buy. My guess is that these people were experimenting. If you had just a couple frogs it might work, twice a week isn't unreasonable. But my guess is like most things it was a proof of concept which they would have tried to refine. Perhaps it was forgotten or it didn't work. Also you seem to be missing my point, my point was you wouldn't try this unless you were an advanced frogger who was trying to break through into new methods and that is not something a new person should be trying, going into uncharted territory.


----------



## pdfCrazy (Feb 28, 2012)

Pubfiction said:


> Back in those days there was no internet and lots of junk you guys think is easy and basic was not so easy to come buy. My guess is that these people were experimenting. If you had just a couple frogs it might work, twice a week isn't unreasonable. But my guess is like most things it was a proof of concept which they would have tried to refine. Perhaps it was forgotten or it didn't work. Also you seem to be missing my point, my point was you wouldn't try this unless you were an advanced frogger who was trying to break through into new methods and that is not something a new person should be trying, going into uncharted territory.


Uhhhhh, no. I think your missing everyones point. Advanced froggers would never bother even trying to feed artificial, synthetic, formulated foods, say for instance pelleted bearded dragon diet. Natural, live foods are well known to be the best. And "back in the day", fruit flies have been being cultured for scientific reasons for decades and decades.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

So advanced froggers never try to do anything that is unconventional? How ever did they figure out all the new trends in the hobby? I guess all the innovation came from newbies like this one right?


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Pubfiction said:


> Back in those days there was no internet and lots of junk you guys think is easy and basic was not so easy to come buy. My guess is that these people were experimenting. If you had just a couple frogs it might work, twice a week isn't unreasonable. But my guess is like most things it was a proof of concept which they would have tried to refine. Perhaps it was forgotten or it didn't work. Also you seem to be missing my point, my point was you wouldn't try this unless you were an advanced frogger who was trying to break through into new methods and that is not something a new person should be trying, going into uncharted territory.


This is ridiculous. I find it very hard to believe that anyone, even back in the day, ever bothered to tie string one synthetic fly at a time and wiggled them to entice frogs to eat it all in the name of breaking through into new methods. I mean think about it, even going by the number of flies regularly thrown around by noobs for each feeding, nobody is going to spend the time tying ten tiny little knots per frog per feeding.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Pubfiction said:


> So advanced froggers never try to do anything that is unconventional? How ever did they figure out all the new trends in the hobby? I guess all the innovation came from newbies like this one right?


Necessity is the mother of invention.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

epiphytes etc. said:


> This is ridiculous. I find it very hard to believe that anyone, even back in the day, ever bothered to tie string one synthetic fly at a time and wiggled them to entice frogs to eat it all in the name of breaking through into new methods. I mean think about it, even going by the number of flies regularly thrown around by noobs for each feeding, nobody is going to spend the time tying ten tiny little knots per frog per feeding.


So you missed the part where I said my guess is these people were probably experimenting? A proof of concept or experiment is not invalid just because it takes lots of work. 

Just think about it in the context of this questions, he suggests using a vibrating contraption to trick the frogs into eating a dead food source. If he could stick a dead fruit fly to fishing line or small stick and move it to see if the frogs would eat it, that would be easier than actually making the contraption first right? It would be what we call a proof of concept.


----------



## kenstyles (Sep 11, 2013)

Yep,
I'm dusing the flies with Rep-Cal Herptivite. (pic attached)

Should I also be adding in a vitamin D supplement? 


Also I wanted to know if tiny live black worms are ok. the ones that they feed to tropical fish


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

kenstyles said:


> Yep,
> I'm dusing the flies with Rep-Cal Herptivite. (pic attached)
> 
> Should I also be adding in a vitamin D supplement?
> ...


Please understand that feedback regarding products is not allowed. All I can do is tell you what product I choose to use and why. I have already given you the supplement formula I choose to use. (I use all three of the Repashy products I listed.) I use them because I believe that Repashy has truly done their homework in creating a well balanced product. 
Yes, other products CAN be used successfully, too. You simply have to shore it up with other products to fix the missing parts.
The product you are using is a vitamin supplement ONLY. It has no calcium, or at least no appreciable calcium. Even if it did have enough calcium for your frogs, it would not matter because the product you are using has no vitamin D. Without vitamin D, a body can not process or utilize calcium. Simply put, without vitamin D, there is no calcium available, no matter how much you dump in. You also do not have a usable form of vitamin A. A lack of vitamin A can lead to all kinds of problems, such as: Short Tongue Syndrom (A lack of stickiness to the tongue so your frogs cannot eat. If not addressed this will be certain death.), depressed immune system, and reproduction issues like egg failure and Spindly Leg Syndrome.

So here are two options to fix your vitamins.

*Option 1*
*Continue to use Herptivite.
*Purchase human grade Retinol and grind it down small enough (good luck!), OR purchase Repashy Vitamin A plus. One of those products can be used to supply your vitamin A needs. 
*Purchase some Repashy Superpig for all the great Xanthins in it which truly do much more than just enhance color. They are great for your frogs immune system. 
*Purchase a calcium supplement 
*Address your lack of vitamin D or you will soon be facing Metabolic Bone Disease. This can be done through your choice of calciums supplements, OR by providing UVB lighting and a special top for your viv to allow it to penetrate.
These additions will allow for a better balanced formula.

*Option 2*
*Replace your Herptivite with Repashy Calcium Plus which contains everything I mentioned above.


----------



## kenstyles (Sep 11, 2013)

yeah, I just got a bottle of option 2. mmkay...lol


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Some of the posts in this thread kinda "bother" me. While certainly not practical, there is no harm in trying new things, experimenting, discovering what can be accomplished. Yes, we have a tried and true solution to feeding our frog, but just because you don't need to experiment doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't. I shudder to think what the world would be like today if ths sentiment were more widespread. The exact opposite is what makes humanity, for the most part, so amazing. Our capacity for discovery, curiosity, exploration, invention etc...


----------



## kenstyles (Sep 11, 2013)

there was a guy in the last 1800's that declared that there were no more inventions needed in the world. everything you need to live a happy life already exists. this was before vacuums and automobiles were invented.


----------



## frog dude (Nov 11, 2011)

kenstyles said:


> there was a guy in the last 1800's that declared that there were no more inventions needed in the world. everything you need to live a happy life already exists. this was before vacuums and automobiles were invented.


Well, people did get by just fine then, right? A horse drawn wagon and a broom sufficed just fine then. 

Buuuuuuuut, humans are rarely satisfied to the point of contentment with the technology that is currently available (except that guy). There is always a desire for better, more advanced technology in most people. It is a craving that nobody can describe, the desire to push forward and innovate. 
Our remarkable brain capacity and understanding of physics has led to some remarkable innovations, but it is a natural yearning to discover and invent better technology. Faster, more powerful, fuel efficient cars; new ways of a renewable energy sources. Most people are constantly trying to discover. it it part of our nature.

Completely off track rant finished


----------



## zedly (Jul 19, 2013)

frog dude said:


> Well, people did get by just fine then, right? A horse drawn wagon and a broom sufficed just fine then.
> 
> Buuuuuuuut, humans are rarely satisfied to the point of contentment with the technology that is currently available (except that guy). There is always a desire for better, more advanced technology in most people. It is a craving that nobody can describe, the desire to push forward and innovate.
> Our remarkable brain capacity and understanding of physics has led to some remarkable innovations, but it is a natural yearning to discover and invent better technology. Faster, more powerful, fuel efficient cars; new ways of a renewable energy sources. Most people are constantly trying to discover. it it part of our nature.
> ...



the average life expectancy around 1850 was under 40 years of age for white males. No, people did not get along just fine then. =D

I thank god for advances in medicinal technology everyday!!


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

zedly said:


> the average life expectancy around 1850 was under 40 years of age for white males. No, people did not get along just fine then. =D
> 
> I thank god for advances in medicinal technology everyday!!


Well, here we're going to have a disagree. Yes the life expectancy is higher, but that just leads us to more problems. Are people living longer *and* happier lives? Is living longer worth the cost to society as a whole, considering our finite resources and already burgeoning population? For example, our social security system is in the sh--s right now, because it was designed for people to live on for 2 decades, not 4.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Some of the posts in this thread kinda "bother" me. While certainly not practical, there is no harm in trying new things, experimenting, discovering what can be accomplished. Yes, we have a tried and true solution to feeding our frog, but just because you don't need to experiment doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't. I shudder to think what the world would be like today if ths sentiment were more widespread. The exact opposite is what makes humanity, for the most part, so amazing. Our capacity for discovery, curiosity, exploration, invention etc...


Doug, I don't think anyone said one should not experiment. However, in order to determine whether or not a frog can be sustained on an artificial diet, one would have to raise two large groups of them, feeding the control group on the standard dusted flies, and the other the artificial (pellets, or what have you). Now what happens to those frogs that are not receiving proper nutrition because they are *not* able to be raised on this diet? Are you ok with another hobbyist sacrificing a group of frogs to find out? Keep in mind malnutrition is a terrible way to go.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

I think it'd be possible to condition frogs to take small pellets off a vibrating dish. It would be difficult and you'd likely need to begin mixing flies in with the nonlive food. However this would only work for adults of very bold species.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

This is quite possibly one of the silliest threads ever. Culture some bloody fruitflies.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

epiphytes etc. said:


> However, in order to determine whether or not a frog can be sustained on an artificial diet, one would have to raise two large groups of them, feeding the control group on the standard dusted flies, and the other the artificial (pellets, or what have you)


Or one could simply look at the results of developing a balanced pellet for bullfrogs or Xenopus and use the established data...particularly since the vast majority of nutrition requirements are highly conserved..... 

It should be noted that various methods have been used with success see for example Frog farming: Investigation of biological and mechanical agents to increase the consumption of pelleted food by adult Rana temporaria  »  Brill Online ... 
however it isn't necessarily an easy process. For it to work, the pellet size would have to be appropriate to the size of the frog, the mechanism to move the pellets would have to be sized appropriately to the frogs, be able to withstand the conditions in the enclosure and the pellets would have to be removed before they began to spoil from the heat and moisture. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

pdfCrazy said:


> Uhhhhh, no. I think your missing everyones point. Advanced froggers would never bother even trying to feed artificial, synthetic, formulated foods, say for instance pelleted bearded dragon diet. Natural, live foods are well known to be the best. And "back in the day", fruit flies have been being cultured for scientific reasons for decades and decades.


Okay, I've got to throw the BS flag here.... What criteria are you using for the claim that "natural, live foods are well known to be the best"... If they were the best, then they wouldn't need to be dusted with supplements.. you wouldn't have to ensure that the food feed to those feeders don't result in the bioaccumulation of tocopherols (vitamin E) or pesticides... compared to a pelleted food that can be balanced with respect to all of the nutritional needs without having to worry about insufficient/excess supplements adhering to the feeder...or that the feeder has stored enough vitamin E that it interferes with the uptake of vitamin A or D3 (with the resulting deficiencies...)... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

hypostatic said:


> As previously mentioned, they'll only go after live food that's moving. They will not eat anything plant-related. I'm also fairly certain (like cats) that they can't digest plants.


I'm going to say that this is probably controversial at best... There are a number of recordings of frogs deliberately ingesting plant matter and digesting it... we can look at the frugiverous habits of Xenohyla truncata or the shift to folivory in Euphlyctis hexadactylus (see for example Folivory and seasonal changes in diet in Rana hexadactyla (Anura: Ranidae) - Das - 2009 - Journal of Zoology - Wiley Online Library).... Or the fact that plant materials are often ingested along with prey capture..... There has not been a lot of attention paid to plant materials because of the early studies that demonstrated that frogs only ingest live prey..with the resulting diet studies discarding ingested plant material as accidental artifacts... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Ed, a while ago you posted a link, documenting the intestinal contents of frogs, it showed they had significant plant matter in their diets (whether intentionally or unintentionally). I don't have the link handy, but I bring it up because this was mentioned:



> As previously mentioned, they'll only go after live food that's moving. They will not eat anything plant-related. I'm also fairly certain (like cats) that they can't digest plants.


 Edit: you beat me to it...


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

zedly said:


> the average life expectancy around 1850 was under 40 years of age for white males. No, people did not get along just fine then. =D
> 
> I thank god for advances in medicinal technology everyday!!


And what actual biological purpose is there for living past 40. The reality is for the survival of our species, we don't really need to live much past our twenties. In fact, I'd hazard the statement that our advancements in lifespan are actually proving detrimental to our overall survival as a species.

Too many monkeys in the jungle.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

epiphytes etc. said:


> Doug, I don't think anyone said one should not experiment. However, in order to determine whether or not a frog can be sustained on an artificial diet, one would have to raise two large groups of them, feeding the control group on the standard dusted flies, and the other the artificial (pellets, or what have you). Now what happens to those frogs that are not receiving proper nutrition because they are *not* able to be raised on this diet? Are you ok with another hobbyist sacrificing a group of frogs to find out? Keep in mind malnutrition is a terrible way to go.


I was speaking in more generally in terms of the stifling of ingenuity.

I honestly think the idea is absurd and pointless, but who am I to judge.

And in the words of Penn Jillette. 

"it's just a f***ing rabbit!"


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Doug:

The current hypothesis in biological anthropology for our long lifespan goes like this: We hang around to help our children raise our grandchildren. _**** sapiens_ have longer maturation than other higher primates because they have more to learn--their parents could use a little bit o' help. 

May sound like a "just-so" story, but it does seem plausible. We do live longer than other anthropoids, who are pretty long-lives compared to large social carnivores. And human females certainly live the longest after menopause. 



ZookeeperDoug said:


> And what actual biological purpose is there for living past 40. The reality is for the survival of our species, we don't really need to live much past our twenties. In fact, I'd hazard the statement that our advancements in lifespan are actually proving detrimental to our overall survival as a species.
> 
> Too many monkeys in the jungle.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Groundhog said:


> Doug:
> 
> The current hypothesis in biological anthropology for our long lifespan goes like this: We hang around to help our children raise our grandchildren. _**** sapiens_ have longer maturation than other higher primates because they have more to learn--their parents could use a little bit o' help.
> 
> May sound like a "just-so" story, but it does seem plausible. We do live longer than other anthropoids, who are pretty long-lives compared to large social carnivores. And human females certainly live the longest after menopause.


A plausible hypoypthesis and one that isn't all that unique in the animal world. For example, several generations of cotton top tamarins will help raise young, and they mature much more quickly. I'd argue that our longevity isn't because we need grandparents at all or that there is much evolutionary advantage to that. We've started living longer because of our medical advances. Only in the last couple hundred years has the human lifespan really been extended. This is really very much a very modern change for our species. I'd argue that we'd have seen a greatly advanced lifespan in humans over a much longer time if it was driven by the selective pressures of say having grandparent humans around to help raise the grand kids. I certainly agree that it is a plausible hypothisis.

As for menopause, how long past menopause were human females living say, 200 yrs ago? 300, 400, 500? I don't have any data, but given life expectancies in say the 1500s for example I'd guess pretty close to zero. People back then were raising families in very short generational gaps. It's our intelligence and ingenuity as human beings that enables us to survive much longer, well beyond what is biologically nessesary for the survival of the species,


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Actually, the way we learned it in history and anthropology is that people in ancient civilizations did live to an old age. The reason we see a much shorter average lifespan for ancient peoples is due to the higher infant mortality rates; people who made it out of infancy did live to an old age.
To clarify, I am referring to people living in civilized societies (i.e., urbanized, with occupational specialization). Of course, our modern lower infant mortality rates are a result of modern medicine.

One of my favorite writers take on the issue:

Why Do Grandmothers Exist? | New Republic




ZookeeperDoug said:


> A plausible hypoypthesis and one that isn't all that unique in the animal world. For example, several generations of cotton top tamarins will help raise young, and they mature much more quickly. I'd argue that our longevity isn't because we need grandparents at all or that there is much evolutionary advantage to that. We've started living longer because of our medical advances. Only in the last couple hundred years has the human lifespan really been extended. This is really very much a very modern change for our species. I'd argue that we'd have seen a greatly advanced lifespan in humans over a much longer time if it was driven by the selective pressures of say having grandparent humans around to help raise the grand kids. I certainly agree that it is a plausible hypothisis.
> 
> As for menopause, how long past menopause were human females living say, 200 yrs ago? 300, 400, 500? I don't have any data, but given life expectancies in say the 1500s for example I'd guess pretty close to zero. People back then were raising families in very short generational gaps. It's our intelligence and ingenuity as human beings that enables us to survive much longer, well beyond what is biologically nessesary for the survival of the species,


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

OP: Sorry to hijack--but that's the stuff of my major

Back to diet: 

1) Ed, would it not be accurate to refer to dendrobatids as obligate insectivores? In other words, they evolved to and are designed to eat small arthropods. (Similarly, snakes are obligate carnivores, Ophiophagus are obligate ophiophages, etc.?) 

I am not familiar with any study of feeding king cobras vitamin-enriched, snake-scented meat sausages Then again, I am with Doug on this one: For dart frogs, what would be the nutritional purpose of trying to side-step gut-loaded, supplemented insects?

2) Are balanced, prepared diets more plausible for animals with more catholic tastes, e.g., bearded dragons, crested geckos, omnivorous turtles?
(I am still waiting for hard data on cresties raised on insects and Repashy v. Repashy exclusively...)

Whereas, for rodent eaters, we are really not going to improve upon whole prey?

3) This may be beyond the scope of this thread: Within taxa, is there any correlation between size and dietary range? Seems that the bigger the animal, more choices; but then consider king cobras, or baleen whales, or pandas. Any studies on this?


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

The way I understand it is, in ancient cultures, if you could make it past 21, you had a good chance of living another 47 years.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Ed said:


> Or one could simply look at the results of developing a balanced pellet for bullfrogs or Xenopus and use the established data...particularly since the vast majority of nutrition requirements are highly conserved.....
> 
> It should be noted that various methods have been used with success see for example Frog farming: Investigation of biological and mechanical agents to increase the consumption of pelleted food by adult Rana temporaria**»**Brill Online ...
> however it isn't necessarily an easy process. For it to work, the pellet size would have to be appropriate to the size of the frog, the mechanism to move the pellets would have to be sized appropriately to the frogs, be able to withstand the conditions in the enclosure and the pellets would have to be removed before they began to spoil from the heat and moisture.
> ...



Ahh, Ed, here I thought you would have said that bullfrogs and Xenopus are not dendrobatids, so this example could not be used.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Addendum--figger Jake will like this: The single most effective training aid--for dogs, rats, rabbits, agamines, skinks, turtles? Cheddar cheese goldfish. I ain't making this up... 

I have:

--Successfully used goldfish as part of training dominant-breed dogs to not fight over stupid shit (pits, rotties);
--used as a reward to train the pits not to hassle the lizards;
--opened the bag in front of lizards that have never seen them before, and they immediately pay attention. All agamines love the stuff;
--As do turtles;
--Fed the dogs, rats, lizards and turtle all at the same time, without incident. No one dares misbehave, and risk missing out.

P.S.
No, I do not work for Pepperidge Farm.

P.S.S.
OP--this does not apply to PDFs!!


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Groundhog said:


> Cheddar cheese goldfish.


Ooh... them's fightin' words in my profession!


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

I see where there is confusion, as meant to speak to average life expectancy. I did say lifespan, wrong choice of words.

I did read that article, Groundhog. I almost stopped, and found it really hard to take her seriously after this sentance:



> Many anthropologists and biologists now believe that the bodies of **** sapiens were designed to last about 72 years.


..... Our bodies were not designed.....

Having read your posts though it seems we're pretty much on the same page and should probably not hijack further.


----------



## LexisaurusRex (Aug 8, 2013)

No they are strictly insectivores. You gotta put up with the creepy crawlies... But some of them are kinda cute  

Edit:; 
Didn't read far enough down the posts I see you guys are far past the need for this post haha 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

epiphytes etc. said:


> Ahh, Ed, here I thought you would have said that bullfrogs and Xenopus are not dendrobatids, so this example could not be used.


Why?? I specifically stated above that nutritional requirements are highly conserved so there shouldn't be any expectation for me to make such a silly comment.... 

Now if I thought I was detecting monopoles when I was really getting false readings from an electric can opener then that would be something different... 

Some comments... 

Ed


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Ed said:


> Why?? I specifically stated above that nutritional requirements are highly conserved so there shouldn't be any expectation for me to make such a silly comment....
> 
> Now if I thought I was detecting monopoles when I was really getting false readings from an electric can opener then that would be something different...
> 
> ...


Nice one Ed. Wonder how Dr Cooper will react to the new paper that uses loop quantum gravity, NOT string theory, to provide insight into the expansion and origins of our universe after the big bang


----------



## PumilioTurkey (Feb 25, 2010)

You don't want bugs, you don't keep frogs.


Very easy and easy to remember...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

PumilioTurkey said:


> You don't want bugs, you don't keep frogs.
> 
> Very easy and easy to remember...


And not necessarily true or accurate... . 



frogparty said:


> Nice one Ed. Wonder how Dr Cooper will react to the new paper that uses loop quantum gravity, NOT string theory, to provide insight into the expansion and origins of our universe after the big bang


Obviously, it is premature to discard string theory in favor of a mathematical approach that doesn't take into account all of his work.... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------

