Bioactive enclosure

[TayKiren]

Huh, well I guess I'm getting conflicting information. I thought most people considered plants as a good way of adding a variety of enrichment and clutter to the enclosure?

Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

[Malum Argenteum]

I do think that my gecko's enclosure is better than his previous one, and that he has been doing well in it, but what would the unwanted side effects be? And why are the plants from that website bad?

Animals "do well" in a lot of different sorts of setups; most species we keep are so tolerant of conditions that it can be hard to know what's better for them or not. Even when we do get hints that the animal's situation is better, it is a further question whether those positive changes could have been achieved more simply.

Side effects of husbandry changes depend on the species kept, what their enclosure is like and what gets changed. A simple example is changing from a radiant heat panel to an incandescent light -- the light may keep the hot spot hotter, and the animal may be more likely to exhibit basking behaviors, but the possible down sides are that the light can't be used 24/7 (since animals need some time in darkness), a higher risk of burn injuries, periodic lamp failures (incandescent lamps have a relatively short lifespan) that may result in some time without heat, and an incandescent lamp that provides the correct amount of heat may simply be too visually bright for the comfort of the species. This is just an example to illustrate that each element of care that provides some benefit (or is claimed to provide benefit; virtually all the husbandry decisions we make are based on anecdote at best, marketing at worst) also has other effects that should be considered.

Generally, the side effect issues of "bioactive" enclosures come when the keeper alters conditions to suit the "bioactive" elements without considering the specific needs of the animal in relation to each element of the enclosure design. One example: the microfauna used in "bioactive" enclosures doesn't thrive at the moisture levels many common herp species are kept, so the enclosure then gets run much wetter, which can have negative impact on the animal depending on species.

On the plants: the link to the BP plant package shows a list of four plants that don't correspond to the photo. Of the listed species, a birdsnest fern (Asplenium, probably nidus) isn't likely to tolerate the low soil moisture and RH of a BP enclosure for long (African savannah snake, Asian rainforest plant). Some Dracaena might be decent choices (a loose cluster of D. compacta might not be a bad choice for strong growth and use to the snake at substrate level), but other common species like marginata would outgrow a lot of enclosures (when grown well they get a few feet tall fairly quickly). A vining philodendron is a pretty useful and tolerant plant, but a self-heading hybrid ("non-vine variety") is likely to get really beat up (judging from my BP's habits). Plants are best chosen based on the size and layout of the enclosure, at any rate, not a one-size-fits-all package, and best at sizes larger than a 4" pot (unless a person want to grow them out as potted plants for a year or two).

They do well in dim light and make great houseplants, and are cheap to source, but they have nothing to do with the ball python's native habitat, which is the African savannah and mostly acacia trees and grasses from what I can tell. I've never seen or heard of a bioactive using grasses, I assume there must be some good reason for that

Presumably that's because in general grasses need a ton of light (narrow leaf surfaces, open full sun natural habitats). Your reference to the natural habitat makes me think that an appropriate naturalistic BP enclosure (not necessarily "bioactive", but at the scale I'm thinking may be a possibility) would have:

-- a substrate solid enough and deep enough to allow for a few burrows (but how would we heat burrows in 3 feet of substrate?)

-- something that could functionally replace grass (artificial? maybe skip this unless there's some evidence that BPs actually benefit)

-- spindly shrubs (now the Dracaena marginata has a role to play; with the substrate and some 4 foot tall plants this will be a large enclosure)

-- larger branches for climbing (deadwood should be fine, with some durable vining plants to substitute for leaves/give cover)

I think this (a very challenging to design, very expensive, 8' x 4' x 7' high enclosure) is what a 'package' might look like. But this suggestion is obviously pretty extreme, and that's why I think the piecemeal approach -- choosing specific elements for specific goals -- is the better way to design enclosures.

[Malum Argenteum]

I thought most people considered plants as a good way of adding a variety of enrichment and clutter to the enclosure?

Plants are indeed a good way of adding clutter and enrichment. So is a cardboard tube (really, my smaller snakes in tubs get a lot of use out of paper towel tubes), which needs no light or water, and I can take it out and replace it with something else for more enrichment in a couple weeks.

[YungRasputin]

1) to answer the OP, (sort of), i am still currently in the process of finding plants that would work in a big snake situation - so in the future i could post my findings here or something - is a good question to work out

2) a lot of the debate surrounding this boils down to what i would, in all do respect, say are misconceptions of what terms like “naturalism” “bioactive” “hyper-naturalism” etc actually mean, what constitutes X, and what is the point

i would argue, for example, that “bioactive” simply means a terrarium which is “biologically active” - which would mean, yes, plants but also things like beneficial bacteria and so on - in a nutshell, an a living environment - eg: while my female BP’s enclosure does not contain plants currently it does contain real soil, with real beneficial bacteria, real isopods, real ability to support/sustain life, and so on and so on

i also think there has been a tendency to label anything that is made of wood or is a facsimile of some natural flora to be “naturalism” - which i also think is incorrect because i don’t think throwing those things in a tank and saying “this is naturalism” is indeed naturalism rather i would argue that this term should be used with respect to certain schools of thought re: terraculture + animal husbandry - which try to most accurately reproduce nature both aesthetically *and* functionally (which is to say “naturalism” is much more than just aesthetics but also are you recreating a functional chunk of a natural biome in which your animal lives and more than that, lives in a similar way that they would in the wild)

^to that end the same could be said who treat enclosure like flower gardens - i wouldn’t consider that “naturalism” irrespective of it being “bioactive” (a living terrarium which can support/sustain life)

3) i think there are a whole myriad of benefits and reasonings for bioactive and naturalistic enclosures - both to the animal and to the keeper, like, for example, bioactive enclosures which do have a lot of plants are easier to keep humid for longer periods of time comparative to non-bioactive enclosures

4) i find the general topic hard to discuss without feeling like or being offensive because with respect to any questions in point 3 i would ask, if the snake in question had a choice, do you think they would choose a) a well intentioned and ever evolving facsimile of their natural environment or b) an empty plastic box with newspaper, a water dish, and nothing else - naturally, one would assume A since while it’s possible to keep a human alive in an empty room it’s not exactly preferable - which is of course offensive to say and i am sorry but still

[TayKiren]

It's going to be a while before I get the enclosure and put it together, so it looks like I'm going to be doing a lot of research in the meantime. Thanks for all the in depth thoughts! Also YungRasputin don't worry lol I get what you mean.

Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk