UVB Light for Ball Pythons

[Lord Sorril]

Can someone, anyone, link the *Scientific Study Data* that shows that ***Ball Pythons*** benefit from UVB lighting? It is well known that they don't require it.

Of course there are some species of reptiles that do not need UV, but, clearly benefit (e.g. Leopard Geckos+calcium absorption), but, that is not what we are talking about here.

I want to look at the statistically relevant study data on the improvement of nutrient absorption and bone density in ball pythons-that I see every care sheet online claiming as 'fact'.

[Malum Argenteum]

So, to clarify, you're asking simply for a paper that shows that the Python regius in that study had an increase in either or both nutrient absorption or bone density?

The reason I ask is because that's different than showing that the species has been shown to "benefit" -- that is, have positive outcomes overall. For one thing, it would have to be true that nutrient absorption or bone density are in some way sub-par in the control group. To take an analogous case in humans, fructose intake increases nutrient absorption, but increasing one's fructose intake would not be expected to carry 'benefit' in the vast majority of cases. This leap from 'measured effect' to 'benefit' is noted in the abstract of this study of UVB provision to P. bivittatus: "Answering whether these elevated levels have health benefits for Burmese pythons (and possibly other snake species) requires further studies."

To say that P. regius "benefits" from UVB, it would also have to be true that whatever positive effects occur, those are not outweighed by negative effects. That would take much more than one study, or even a small handful.

Anyway, here's a paper that found no physiological effects from UVB provision to Python regius:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Python_regius

The authors of this paper note that the study had some shortcomings from a research standpoint that may have led to the negative results. It is worth noting that if effects of any research are to be extrapolated to captive hobby conditions, there should be demonstrated a strong effect that's relatively independent of extraneous variables (since none of our care holds up to experimental design requirements). That is to say, this study may well be an accurate demonstration of what typical keepers might expect for results.

[Lord Sorril]

So, to clarify, you're asking simply for a paper that shows that the Python regius in that study had an increase in either or both nutrient absorption or bone density?

That is a neat experiment you linked to, but, a really small sample size (6 female ball pythons tested against UVB)...so small that I might consider it to be non-viable. The control group consisted of males as well: which is odd because males/females should have been divided evenly within the test and control groups...

All the care sheets I saw online recommend UVB for ball python care and stated that studies have proven this to be beneficial. I am looking for those studies.

Some people claim that the color of their ball pythons look 'brighter' in UVB light. I do not consider 'brightness' to be a beneficial characteristic without a physiological component (I look better tan too-doesn't mean it is a good thing). The same goes for behavioral modification: A subjective change in behavior (e.g. 'more active') is not always a beneficial symptom. A ball python that increases roving around its enclosure is not necessarily an indicator that it is 'more comfortable'.

[Lord Sorril]

Excerpts from Care Sheets:

The BioDude:


Pet MD:


Chicago Exotics Animal Hospital:


Reptiles Magazine:

Link to information on Ferguson zones: A Purely Subjective System based on human-biased observation.

[Starscream]

I will provide what people are potentially referencing when they say ball pythons 'benefit' from UVB, a comment made by reptile keeper Francis Cosquieri:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...iE/mobilebasic

This paragraph here seems familiar and relevant to those care sheets:

The science is absolutely crystal clear on this - UV exposure has marked effects on the health and activity of snakes. It may be possible to keep them without it, but this does not mean we are keeping them as well as we could be, or that they are as healthy as they could be. Following this line of thinking and knowingly depriving your reptile of something that is BENEFICIAL but not strictly ‘needed’ is what leads to cutting corners, resulting in a reduction in the animals’ health, the animal possibly not reaching its full lifespan and not able to exhibit its natural behaviours.

I would however like to point out that all science is "human-'biased' observation", so I'm a little confused at what your point is regarding Ferguson zones. I will also say that Exo-Terra is commercially motivated to turn a profit, and therefore potentially not the best source of info on Ferguson zones in regards to reptiles. Here's a piece of research headed by Frances Baines about the UV tool and how to use Ferguson zones:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...rorgjzararticl

[Malum Argenteum]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with 'Hitchens's Razor', which states "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Seems to be relevant here.

On Ferguson Zones: I'm not convinced that there's no value in this scale. I would keep in mind, though, that -- contrary to a lot of handwaving claims to the contrary -- imitating parameters that are found in wild conditions clearly isn't a reliable method for captive success. This is true at least in part because (a) captivity isn't just a scaled-down version of the wild; (b) wild specimens are not the same as captive specimens (as the latter have been acclimated to and selectively bred -- intentionally and unintentionally -- to do well in captive conditions), and (c) wild specimens die from all sorts of things that captive care aims to avoid. And at least in some cases of 'wild conditions' recommendations, there's an underlying very basic misunderstanding about how evolutionary adaptation works (the assumption is that a wild species is adapted to all the elements of its wild environment, which is incorrect).

To take one illustrative example of wild vs captive conditions, in Dav Kaufman's contentious ball python video he recorded temp and RH in two BP burrows at different locations at 95F, 80%RH in one, and 92F, 90%RH in another. We wouldn't replicate that in captivity, since we know that those extremes aren't conducive to good results.

So while it is interesting to know what sort of UVB exposure certain species might be exposed to in the wild (even if we don't know how, when, during what life stage or to what extent those species exploit that available UVB), to simply assume that captive exposure should be the same is completely unwarranted.

On one topical point: the 'immune system function' angle is an interesting rabbit hole to go down. There's a lot of human data on this connection, and it is not straightforward. It seems that in humans there's some evidence that UVB can increase systemic immune response to some things (notably, Covid). Most studies on immune response and UVB in humans show that UVB exposure detrimental if anything. We also know that in the skin, UVB is quite immunosuppressive, which is why UVB is used to treat immune disorders such as psoriasis, and is one reason it leads to cancer. There's a clear reason why human and non-human animals have both physiological and behavioral mechanisms to avoid UVB exposure, and it is not because UVB exposure is a net benefit.

[Lord Sorril]

I have not seen any physiological study data so far that indicates that ball pythons 'Benefit' (on any level) from UVB radiation...and Ultraviolet B *IS* radiation.
Show me a laboratory controlled study that proves there is a benefit to mildly irradiating my ball pythons.

[Malum Argenteum]

I will provide what people are potentially referencing when they say ball pythons 'benefit' from UVB, a comment made by reptile keeper Francis Cosquieri:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...iE/mobilebasic

That's a fun read, in spite of being quite a mess. There's a lot to be said about it, but what stood out to me most were the passages where he is conflationary on important issues. For example:

"When you have longevity records for, say, Royal pythons hitting 47 and 62 years, you have to ask - how were THOSE snakes kept? (Answer - not in tubs, and with access to sunlight). Contrast this with one ‘big breeder’ who has let slip his females live 8-10 years on a video, which is ABYSMAL for Royal pythons; you would expect at least 20-30 years. So while that is anecdotal, there certainly is a precedent for healthier snakes to be more likely to live longer."

There are a lot of extra variables there: a breeder pushing females to breed (early and often) is very likely to get short lifespans out of them regardless of UVB provision; the 62 year old snake is a zoo animal, and certainly there are many more important factors in that lifespan than UVB (veterinary attention at the drop of a hat, primarily).

Another conflationary element in Cosquieri's arguments is that he shifts from 'UVB' (in the title) to 'UV' (in later parts of the piece). This is important since much of the behavioral benefit is possibly/probably attributable to UVA. Back in 1990s was the introduction of UV to herp keeping. The first step in usage and hardware availability were lamps with a substantial UVA output; the selling point on these was the behavioral benefits. After UVB lamps (which also have UVA, in roughly the same amount as the earlier lamps had) came into widespread use, we seem to have forgotten this distinction (kind of like "bioactive" peddlers focusing on the benefits of naturalistic enclosures but failing to point out that all those benefits can be had without the microfauna and expensive substrates and drainage layers). Kind of a shame that even sophisticated commentary on UV use fails to consider this.

I couldn't easily check the "citations" for the behavioral studies, since many of them were just name-dropping. Furthermore, out of the six full citations he offers, one is a college project, one is a thesis, one is a dissertation, and another one is unpublished. Two of the five citations he offers in support of the claim that UVB increases D3 levels do not in fact address that connection at all.

If you want to see a poorly designed study, and one that seems to argue against providing UVB, check out Bradwell, Jordan, and Jessica Hackett (cited by Cosquieri). "The Effects of Ultraviolet (UV) Light Exposure on the Physiology And Behaviour of Captive Corn Snakes (Elaphe guttata)." RATEL (2013): 9. here. Each group was three snakes, the study duration was short (7 weeks), experimental housing was marginal (2 year old corn snakes in a 12 x 12 viv, which is a poor layout for thermoregulation, a factor that was not noted); the lamp was either a 10.0% UVB lamp, or provided a UVI of 10 -- the paper is ambiguous on this; the test group also received oral supplements that the control group did not (so we don't actually know which variable caused the effects); one behavioral difference that was noted was "a heightened state of aggressiveness", and the test snakes were in their hides in every single data measurement (the control snakes were in and out of their hides roughly half the time). The behavioral findings in that study are what I would consider patently negative.

His zealotry comes out here when he gets his words tangled: "It is also worth mentioning again that study was the SINGLE UV study performed on reptiles that did not show rather obvious differences between the animals kept under different treatments, and a comparable study using the same methodology and time period was performed on Bearded Dragons (which obviously DO require UV and lots of it) that yielded exactly the same result as for Royal Pythons. In other words, take that result with a pinch of salt." So, there was only one study that showed negative results and it was exactly the same as another study that showed negative results. I get what he's trying to say here (and it is admittedly a good point), but it is revealing that he got ahead of himself in his sales pitch.

[Lord Sorril]

If you want to see a poorly designed study, and one that seems to argue against providing UVB, check out Bradwell, Jordan, and Jessica Hackett (cited by Cosquieri). "The Effects of Ultraviolet (UV) Light Exposure on the Physiology And Behaviour of Captive Corn Snakes (Elaphe guttata)." RATEL (2013): 9. here.

Damn, that one is brutal. My inner scientist cringed so hard I couldn't get more than a few paragraphs in...