Feed Guide for Newbies (Rats v Mice) - Page 5

Reptile_Reptile · 05-17-13, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KORBIN5895

AA

Then answer them and stop whining.

It would have been a discussion but one of them sat in the corner and got all defensive. So you can't really classify it as a fight.

I would like this question answered; is there more fat on a 450g adult rat than a 50g "adult" rat? Is there more fat in three 50g mice or one 150g rat? If so wouldn't that make all of the numbers a bit skewed?

It's nice to come on here and claim to have done all of this research and have all of these facts to back up your assumption but you better make sure you facts are complete.

If you can't see how incomplete the data really is then I am truly sorry to hear that but you have no business taking part in this debate..... or lack thereof.

nobody was whining i simply didnt have the knowledge to help them. can you please link me to sites that support your claim of incomplete data? or maybe refer me to a book? how about make a similar post but from your theory's perspective? i would love to read.

jarich · 05-17-13, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reptile_Reptile

nobody was whining i simply didnt have the knowledge to help them. can you please link me to sites that support your claim of incomplete data? or maybe refer me to a book? how about make a similar post but from your theory's perspective? i would love to read.

I would have to question that you actually read through the entire thread then. The OP was not looking for help, there was no question asked; he was instead presenting a hypothesis based on some research that he had done. It was a good starting point, but some of his assessments were flawed because he didnt delve deeper into the topic. I did present evidence and show some of the flaws, but it was largely ignored, which is what you seem to be doing too.

Its a shame, because I think the OP did a good job starting to research the topic. However, it seems like he was unwilling to consider that perhaps he might have been wrong and that a little more research might yield further understanding. Nutrition is a complex topic, and isnt going to be fully understood in a week of cruising websites.

I made a similar mistake when I first started on the forums. I was dead set against feeding mice to savannah monitors ever, and this after only having done some limited research on the topic. Someone called me on it and quite appropriately showed me the limitations of my research. I will admit, it pissed me off at first too, but then led me to research it further so that wouldnt happen again. That guy that handed me my hat is a member here now and I respect his knowledge greatly, though we still disagree from time to time. That argument is probably the only reason Im able to tell you that the initial post here is incorrect though. Kind of cycle of knowledge I suppose.

In my opinion, the exchange and discourse of ideas is a great thing, and should not be taken personally when there is disagreement. We can go back and forth here without hating each other at the end or feeling personally slighted. I hope anyway. Experience is a nasty teacher sometimes, and often misunderstood. So the ability to run ideas like this by each other can be so helpful. Learning from others means we dont have to experience everything ourselves, and can save some heartache as a result.

KORBIN5895 · 05-17-13, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reptile_Reptile

nobody was whining i simply didnt have the knowledge to help them. can you please link me to sites that support your claim of incomplete data? or maybe refer me to a book? how about make a similar post but from your theory's perspective? i would love to read.

Here is a link to support what I said about incomplete data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaunyboy

heres a nutrition chart that covers most types of prey.....

Rodent Pro's Nutrient Composition

cheers shaun

Would you look at that! It is the same data he used!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris72

Sure:

The nutrient breakdown is from RodentPro.

The bit about nutrient function is personal knowledge. (I am an elite amature endurance athlete) knowledge gained from school, decades of working with coaches and lots of friends who race at a higher level than I.

The size chart is from another feed supplier site on the web.

What size to feed: common knowledge. Corroborated by senior member on the board of course.

PM me if you want a refferance for something specific. (It took time)

Now Jr if you take the time to look at the data provided you sill see that they are calling an adult rat 50g plus. How can a 50g rat be the same nutritionally as a 150g rat? Or a 300g rat? Or even a 500g rat? Sorry but it just doesn't work.

Since the data stops at 50g rats there is no way to compare the nutritional value of three 40g mice to a 150g rat as there is no info on a 150g rat. Hence incomplete data.

Terranaut · 05-18-13, 07:52 AM

Seeing as that chart goes by % I think that rodentpro is considering the makeup of a 50g rat propotionately the same as a 500g rat. So according to that 10 50gm rats would equal 1 500gm rat. I could be wrong but this is what I got from the chart. I don't agree myself but have no data to back anything up so it's just my opinion. So like a pint of water is the same as a gallon. Just different amounts.

KORBIN5895 · 05-18-13, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terranaut

Seeing as that chart goes by % I think that rodentpro is considering the makeup of a 50g rat propotionately the same as a 500g rat. So according to that 10 50gm rats would equal 1 500gm rat. I could be wrong but this is what I got from the chart. I don't agree myself but have no data to back anything up so it's just my opinion. So like a pint of water is the same as a gallon. Just different amounts.

Actually Dan that assumption is wrong. If you actually look at their product description you will see that their 475g+ rats are retired breeders and are fattier. I will get a link or screen shot later.

Reptile_Reptile · 05-18-13, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarich

I would have to question that you actually read through the entire thread then. The OP was not looking for help, there was no question asked; he was instead presenting a hypothesis based on some research that he had done.

no i was referring to the totally over read post on the top of page 4 quoted below

Quote:

Originally Posted by smy_749

I'm not reading all of the arguing, its too much text for me. I did read this one though, so I thought I'd ask. The boost in growth from feeding rats that people see, is that just due to them tending to feed a larger rat than they would if they were feeding a mouse?

Reptile_Reptile · 05-18-13, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarich

It was a good starting point, but some of his assessments were flawed because he didnt delve deeper into the topic. I did present evidence and show some of the flaws, but it was largely ignored, which is what you seem to be doing too.

also i ignored nothing i read every post. i would ask you to clarify what i exactly did; i have really not said much on this thread mostly responding and clarifying things that you guys really weren't getting off my original post.

KORBIN5895 · 05-18-13, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smy_749

I'm not reading all of the arguing, its too much text for me. I did read this one though, so I thought I'd ask. The boost in growth from feeding rats that people see, is that just due to them tending to feed a larger rat than they would if they were feeding a mouse?

I have a theory on this. When you feed a larger meal to a snake it causes several organ to enlarge and is considers good for the snake. I think the growth could be directly related to all of those enlarged organs. It is just what I think though.

Reptile_Reptile · 05-18-13, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KORBIN5895

I have a theory on this. When you feed a larger meal to a snake it causes several organ to enlarge and is considers good for the snake. I think the growth could be directly related to all of those enlarged organs. It is just what I think though.

interesting opinion

Terranaut · 05-18-13, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KORBIN5895

Actually Dan that assumption is wrong. If you actually look at their product description you will see that their 475g+ rats are retired breeders and are fattier. I will get a link or screen shot later.

Charts like this are averages and not specific. Again I think they consider the make up of most rats to be roughly the same from 50gm and up. It actually says the retired breeders may have a higher fat content. So yeah these charts generalise and are not to be taken as exact figures. I am sure if you grabbed 10 rats all the exact same weight and broke them down they would all be slightly different. So unless they have a few more headings this chary will never be complete. I still think it's great for a quick comparison between rodents but I don't there are any in depth studies that have ended in a rodent bible yet.

jarich · 05-19-13, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reptile_Reptile

the last 3 pages of this thread need to be deleted and the poor poster who got ignored in favor of the fight should be answered knowledgeably

This was your original post from the 4th page, wherein you say the last three pages, including the poster you feel was ignored, should be erased. I think you can probably see how your post was both misunderstood, and how it could easily be taken as a slight against all the good information contained in these pages. And if you did read the rest of the thread, then you would have seen that I and others did respond to the poster regarding his question. In other words, you seem to be the one wanting nothing but a fight, since you contributed nothing else to this thread.

**Aaron_S** · 05-19-13, 02:58 PM

has anybody thought that rodentpro DID do the research on rats over 50 grams but since it was the same they decided to call 50grams an adult and end the chart there?

Has anybody asked them?

jarich · 05-19-13, 03:06 PM

Im not saying this as a slight to them, but I dont think RodentPro did any independent research. The chart they post is taken directly from an article in 2002. Here is the original:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/zoo/Who...nal02May29.pdf

Terranaut · 05-19-13, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

has anybody thought that rodentpro DID do the research on rats over 50 grams but since it was the same they decided to call 50grams an adult and end the chart there?

Has anybody asked them?

Good point !!!

KORBIN5895 · 05-19-13, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

has anybody thought that rodentpro DID do the research on rats over 50 grams but since it was the same they decided to call 50grams an adult and end the chart there?

Has anybody asked them?

Aaron, a 50g rat isn't even an adult as they wouldn't be sexually mature. Their tails aren't even fully grown!

I can't see how a still forming rat could have the same calcium as a full grown rat even by percentages.