16 years of BP ownership, bio-active is still the way.

[Malum Argenteum]

How do the pathogens -- primary pathogens with direct life cycles, as well as and especially opportunistic bacteria -- get exported or inactivated?

Nitrogen and phosphorus aren't particularly problematic for ball pythons, but I'm wondering how the enclosure gets sized to deal with whatever quantities of waste are expected. A ball python in a 4 x 2 foot enclosure is easily 100 times the bioload as is the setups that "bioactive" attempts to imitate (that is, dart frogs), and the waste from a BP is much less evenly distributed. Those enclosures have water flushing out wastes and pathogens (just as in natural environments, at least any that feature rivers and other surface water bodies that are sinks and transports for organic waste), have a very high plant mass, use substrates that are optimized for microfauna (high void space to volume) and have additional nutrient export mechanisms in the forms of (a) display animals consuming the microfauna for another cycle of the nutrients, and (b) export through regular offspring production and removal from the system.

I guess my thought is that after running more than a dozen such enclosures for roughly six years I don't see the long term functionality in such a very simplified system, even aside from the very high bioloading. The amount of plant trimmings that would have to exported to account for the nutrients in a rat per week would be more than can be grown in that area. That's the root of my 'naturalistic' comment.

[Malum Argenteum]

Here's some numbers on nutrient export from a system composed of a ball python in an enclosure, using nitrogen as an example. I had fun running these numbers, as I had not done so before.

Feeder rats have a protein content of about 60% of dry weight, and are about 70% water, so are about 20% protein by live weight (data taken from Mader's Reptile Medicine, p. 218). Thus, a 100g feeder rat (the smaller ones in the medium bag) has about 20g protein.

Protein is 16% nitrogen (source). Thus, a 100g feeder rat contains 3.2g N.

Looks like the highest N content in plants is about 3% of dry weight (source).

So, when a rat is fed to a snake, two things can happen to the N in the rat. One is that the N can be taken up into the snake's tissues as protein. This happens a lot when the snake is young (as it is building tissue), and less as it slows its growth. The second thing that can happen is the N (either that which was ingested, or that which is the product of cellular breakdown as tissues get repaired with new protein) gets excreted in feces and urates. At any rate, all the N in the rat stays in the system (snake + enclosure) until it is removed.

The microfauna take up a little N in their diet, but (a) there's not more than a couple ounces of microfauna in the system so their contribution to N uptake is negligible, and (b) the same factors regarding excretion of N apply to the microfauna as do to the snake -- so once their population stops increasing, they are not a factor in sequestering N.

Each time a 100g rat is fed (I assume about weekly), 3.2 g of N enter the system. At the point the snake stops growing, basically all this N will be excreted by the snake. In order to export it from the system only through uptake by the plants, approximately 100g of plants (dry weight) would have to be removed from the system. Various sources state that plants in general are about 80-90% water (example); lets shoot low so to be very conservative and say a plant is 70% water. Thus, 233g (8 ounces; 1/2 pound) of fresh plant mass would have to be removed from the system per week -- about 25 pounds per year -- to take up the nitrogen in our example system.

I think that shows that nutrient export by plants alone from this sort of "bioactive" system is implausible, and by extension I think it is safe to say that such systems do not effectively process the waste of the animals housed in them, but rather build up waste products in a way that the keeper cannot see. We could figure out how much footprint would be needed to grow 25 pounds of plants per year and use that to appropriately size "bioactive" enclosures, though this would still not take into account the pathogen accumulation concern.

[anatess]

Here's some numbers on nutrient export from a system composed of a ball python in an enclosure, using nitrogen as an example. I had fun running these numbers, as I had not done so before.

Feeder rats have a protein content of about 60% of dry weight, and are about 70% water, so are about 20% protein by live weight (data taken from Mader's Reptile Medicine, p. 218). Thus, a 100g feeder rat (the smaller ones in the medium bag) has about 20g protein.

Protein is 16% nitrogen (source). Thus, a 100g feeder rat contains 3.2g N.

Looks like the highest N content in plants is about 3% of dry weight (source).

So, when a rat is fed to a snake, two things can happen to the N in the rat. One is that the N can be taken up into the snake's tissues as protein. This happens a lot when the snake is young (as it is building tissue), and less as it slows its growth. The second thing that can happen is the N (either that which was ingested, or that which is the product of cellular breakdown as tissues get repaired with new protein) gets excreted in feces and urates. At any rate, all the N in the rat stays in the system (snake + enclosure) until it is removed.

The microfauna take up a little N in their diet, but (a) there's not more than a couple ounces of microfauna in the system so their contribution to N uptake is negligible, and (b) the same factors regarding excretion of N apply to the microfauna as do to the snake -- so once their population stops increasing, they are not a factor in sequestering N.

Each time a 100g rat is fed (I assume about weekly), 3.2 g of N enter the system. At the point the snake stops growing, basically all this N will be excreted by the snake. In order to export it from the system only through uptake by the plants, approximately 100g of plants (dry weight) would have to be removed from the system. Various sources state that plants in general are about 80-90% water (example); lets shoot low so to be very conservative and say a plant is 70% water. Thus, 233g (8 ounces; 1/2 pound) of fresh plant mass would have to be removed from the system per week -- about 25 pounds per year -- to take up the nitrogen in our example system.

I think that shows that nutrient export by plants alone from this sort of "bioactive" system is implausible, and by extension I think it is safe to say that such systems do not effectively process the waste of the animals housed in them, but rather build up waste products in a way that the keeper cannot see. We could figure out how much footprint would be needed to grow 25 pounds of plants per year and use that to appropriately size "bioactive" enclosures, though this would still not take into account the pathogen accumulation concern.

Over my head, man.

But what I kinda got from that is that you don’t pick up your snake’s poop. Kinda weird to me, but ok.

In any case, I got aquariums, terrariums, vivariums, aviary, dogs, kids…. I don’t really sit here measuring scientifically their nutrition. I call my vivs bioactive, my dogs raw-fed, I call my kids holistic, because that’s what everyone else calls it. I don’t really sit here making sure my kids gets x grams of vitamin c from their orange. I know they’re healthy because they’re not sick. I know my plants are healthy because they have good coloration and growth. I know my snakes are healthy because they have good coloration, girth, shed, activity level, etc etc. If you don’t think that setup is bioactive that’s fine. I just called it that because that’s what the Bio Dude said it is called when I started out.

You should join the Raw Fed pets forum. They’re even more vicious with their nutrient measurements… and then there’s the Mom’s group, whew lad.

Peace.

[Homebody]

Here's some numbers on nutrient export from a system composed of a ball python in an enclosure, using nitrogen as an example. I had fun running these numbers, as I had not done so before.

Feeder rats have a protein content of about 60% of dry weight, and are about 70% water, so are about 20% protein by live weight (data taken from Mader's Reptile Medicine, p. 218). Thus, a 100g feeder rat (the smaller ones in the medium bag) has about 20g protein.

Protein is 16% nitrogen (source). Thus, a 100g feeder rat contains 3.2g N.

Looks like the highest N content in plants is about 3% of dry weight (source).

So, when a rat is fed to a snake, two things can happen to the N in the rat. One is that the N can be taken up into the snake's tissues as protein. This happens a lot when the snake is young (as it is building tissue), and less as it slows its growth. The second thing that can happen is the N (either that which was ingested, or that which is the product of cellular breakdown as tissues get repaired with new protein) gets excreted in feces and urates. At any rate, all the N in the rat stays in the system (snake + enclosure) until it is removed.

The microfauna take up a little N in their diet, but (a) there's not more than a couple ounces of microfauna in the system so their contribution to N uptake is negligible, and (b) the same factors regarding excretion of N apply to the microfauna as do to the snake -- so once their population stops increasing, they are not a factor in sequestering N.

Each time a 100g rat is fed (I assume about weekly), 3.2 g of N enter the system. At the point the snake stops growing, basically all this N will be excreted by the snake. In order to export it from the system only through uptake by the plants, approximately 100g of plants (dry weight) would have to be removed from the system. Various sources state that plants in general are about 80-90% water (example); lets shoot low so to be very conservative and say a plant is 70% water. Thus, 233g (8 ounces; 1/2 pound) of fresh plant mass would have to be removed from the system per week -- about 25 pounds per year -- to take up the nitrogen in our example system.

I think that shows that nutrient export by plants alone from this sort of "bioactive" system is implausible, and by extension I think it is safe to say that such systems do not effectively process the waste of the animals housed in them, but rather build up waste products in a way that the keeper cannot see. We could figure out how much footprint would be needed to grow 25 pounds of plants per year and use that to appropriately size "bioactive" enclosures, though this would still not take into account the pathogen accumulation concern.

What effect would you expect all that excess nitrogen to have on the fauna and flora?

[Malum Argenteum]

What effect would you expect all that excess nitrogen to have on the fauna and flora?

I don't imagine anyone knows the effects on a BP just from N in the substrate, but I doubt it is particularly harmful. There's definitely plenty of anecodotal evidence on the excess of soil N for plants (burning, especially if chemical N, and wild weak growth if from organic sources).

There's also anecdotal evidence that isopod cultures get tired after a handful of years, and I would expect that to happen in a system where there are lots of inputs and basically no outputs, though whether that's due to N I don't know -- probably general waste buildup. While isopods do eat their own and other animals' feces, these are not nutritional food sources and so the relative balance of feces to decent food might explain why old cultures get tired. They primarily eat fungus and cellulose (larger species eat wood and cork pretty readily), which is one reason leaf litter additions are another important part of nutrient cycling in these sorts of enclosures.

But the reason I picked N for calculations is that it is really simple to get good data on (we know how much is in a rat, and how much in plants -- and those were the only imports and exports). From those calculations, we can infer similar build up of other compounds that are more worrying, though we'd need to adjust our estimates based on how much of some analogous substance might be taken up by plants. Salts are a type of compound (mostly chloride and carbonate compounds) that build up in water-added soil systems that don't have exports of water (ever have a houseplant with no drainage hole in the pot?), which will eventually kill plants and likely microfauna. After pathogens, salts would be my next concern for a system with no drainage. Coco fiber and chips are known to regularly be high in salt levels, so such a substrate would start out at a disadvantage in this regard.

Not subject to analogy with N, but still a concern, would be the clogging of the void space in the substrate that would gradually reduce the ability of water to flow through the substrate, and reduce the ability of the microfauna to inhabit it. Long-term substrates (i.e. "ABG", which is the gold standard of organic substrates for this purpose) for waste-processing enclosures have a lot of void space -- they're basically uniformly sized charcoal chips and good orchid bark like Orchiata, with some peat and sphagnum to hold some water, and the best versions have hard tree fern fiber to serve as 'scaffolding' to hold the grains apart -- which enables water to flush sediments through and out. This clogging happens in houseplant soil, for another familiar illustration, but there we usually solve the issue with a repotting in fresh potting mix.

[Malum Argenteum]

Over my head, man.

But what I kinda got from that is that you don’t pick up your snake’s poop. Kinda weird to me, but ok.

In any case, I got aquariums, terrariums, vivariums, aviary, dogs, kids…. I don’t really sit here measuring scientifically their nutrition. I call my vivs bioactive, my dogs raw-fed, I call my kids holistic, because that’s what everyone else calls it. I don’t really sit here making sure my kids gets x grams of vitamin c from their orange. I know they’re healthy because they’re not sick. I know my plants are healthy because they have good coloration and growth. I know my snakes are healthy because they have good coloration, girth, shed, activity level, etc etc. If you don’t think that setup is bioactive that’s fine. I just called it that because that’s what the Bio Dude said it is called when I started out.

You should join the Raw Fed pets forum. They’re even more vicious with their nutrient measurements… and then there’s the Mom’s group, whew lad.

Peace.

All I was trying to show is that plants in this sort of enclosure don't take up nutrients from waste to any degree worth mentioning, and I should have been more clear about the scope of my claims. But that's at the heart of my earlier comment about 'bioactive vs naturalistic', which is really misunderstood.

As for the Bio Dude reference, yeah we could have another whole discussion about people selling animal owners stuff they don't need and that don't really work in the way they're claimed to. That's nothing new, of course, but that seller did take the bull by the horns on that deal. He's a phenomenal marketer.