Coconut Oil

[glitch4200]

Fortunately since I'm in South Florida my torts are outside everyday in natural sunlight so I do not need UVB lights. I do think this attempt to experiment with a new product has merit for indoor torts. Especially for those raised in open top tables under UVB and basking lamps.
Enclosed chambers with elevated humidity levels , soaking, water always available, have been shown over time to improve the desiccating effects of artificially light. This has been done by hobbyists experimenting with their own herds. Not a scientific based study - we won't get one of those. The $, times, & effort to set up a proper double blind study is not available. Our data is antidotal and we have to make broad assumptions of causal effects. But this is still good info and valid. Certainly convinced me to change my husbandry. And I'm a sceptic

Having said that, I see no real downside to measured shell application. The OP has shown a definite shell improvement in his own tort. I don't believe application to the skin is a good idea however.

The UVB lights D3 benefits are absorbed through the skin, not the shell. EVCO has a UVB blockage effect. I see no upside to putting it on their skin

Ahh waking up to your belief that this has some merit to indoor captive torts made my day. I was thinking about the fact that the majority of information on here was probably NOT the result of a controlled scientific study that came to these unbiased conclusions. Encompassing the entirety of basic and advanced husbandry. Observational data from both amateur and profession tortoise keepers seem to have a lot of pull if articulated correctly in this forum. I am seeing results from controlled application. Even if it's observational, the majority of information here seems to be observational in nature anyway.. I agree with the fact that the skin probably will not benefit much from application, unless it's a localized dry spot using a qtip. I think I'll stop applying it to the skin , except maybe the top of his wittle head seems to get dry easily. Otherwise. I have gained even more confidence in this debatable topic

 

[Elohi]

I love coconut oil for many many reasons. I don't see why occasional shell application would be of concern but I wouldn't apply to the skin unless there is a minor wound or anomaly. I would be concerned with regular skin application due to the possibility of it interfering with the natural processes with the sun or artificial lighting(UVB).
Also, has anyone used a temp gun to see if the skin or carapace gets warmer under the sun or while basking under artificial light vs. temps without oil application? I know oil on human skin will hold in heat....something to think about since we don't want them overheating.

 

[glitch4200]

I love coconut oil for many many reasons. I don't see why occasional shell application would be of concern but I wouldn't apply to the skin unless there is a minor wound or anomaly. I would be concerned with regular skin application due to the possibility of it interfering with the natural processes with the sun or artificial lighting(UVB).
Also, has anyone used a temp gun to see if the skin or carapace gets warmer under the sun or while basking under artificial light vs. temps without oil application? I know oil on human skin will hold in heat....something to think about since we don't want them overheating.

I have a temp gun and I have been taking readings all day every day for weeks as I have been applying the oil and I see very little difference I'm the shell or skin . I was worried about that too. but it seems to me still that after many applications of oil and temp gun readinds at all diffeent times od the day the top of the shell does not really get extra heated or cool down for that matter.

 

[glitch4200]

I have the temperatures recorded with and without oil while basking under both the mvb and heat lamp since I have both .

 

[glitch4200]

i use a lot of info from here but i have pictures to show exactly what i am trying to relate with all this.

"The infrared wavelengths of sunlight are almost all in the shorter wavelengths called IR-A. There is a small amount of IR-B but no IR-C. IR-A will gently warm through the entire body of a small reptile as it basks. Bigger ones will of course take a lot longer to warm up.

"There is something special about the IR-A from sunlight, though, that needs mentioning.
Our earth's atmosphere contains a great deal of moisture - water vapour and droplets - in the miles of atmospheric gas filtering the light from the sun. Water absorbs very specific wavelengths of the sun's radiation. When it absorbs this energy, it warms up. The wavelengths in the IR-A region that are absorbed by water can be detected very easily by looking at a spectrum of sunlight, in the IR-A region. Where the water has absorbed the IR-A, it is in effect "used up", and so is missing from the spectrum;"

(imagine shell of a tortoise)

"Indoors, we create IR-A with basking lamps (incandescent light bulbs, halogen bulbs, mercury vapour lamps and metal halides). Heat sources that do not also give off light, such as ceramic heaters, heat plates, and heat mats emit mainly longer wavelengths - IR-B and IR-C."

"You'll notice that the halogen lamp doesn't have the big dips in its spectrum, caused by several miles of water vapour and droplets taking out the energy from those wavelengths. The halogen lamp also has a lot more IR-B than sunlight, and it also has some IR-C. So when the tortoise basks under a basking lamp, he gets ALL the IR-A wavelengths, including the wavelengths that are missing from the sunlight, plus some IR-B and IR-C.
" But the IR-A wavelengths missing from sunlight are the wavelengths that are most readily absorbed by water molecules. Since the lamp is at most, 1-2ft above the tortoise, not several miles away, there cannot ever be enough atmospheric water vapour between him and the lamp to absorb those wavelengths. So where are the first water molecules those wavelengths encounter? ... inside the cells of the tortoise's carapace and skin! These immediately absorb the energy from those wavelengths of IR-A... creating heat in the carapace and skin."

^---- Examples of my somewhat proof of the fact that we are robbing our tortoises of key moisture that is "normally NOT exhibted in there natural habitats in any part of the world. At which point I come to the conclusion of something like EVCO to block those drying effects that undoubtably exists in indoor kept enclosures, which many people who buy tortoises don't have the appropriate outdoor home anyways, even though its highly known bigger is better. You still want the IR-A to heat down to the furthest layers of the body for proper natural thermoregulation in the tortoise but you have to try and eliminate that effect of vaporizing the water present in the skin and shell... dehydration causes a lot of problem. But yet if a natural sunblock at 90% effiecency like EVCO is present does that eliminate that UNNATURAL effect of loosing that most needed water in the skin and shell of the tortoise.. I see a huge possibility that EVCO could block the unnatural drying effects of indoor used lamps. This would undoutably allow the indoor kept tortoise the proper heat it needs for thermoregulation NATURALLY as it would get in the outdoor enviornment since its shown that water vapor is taken out of the atmosphere and not out of the tortoise instead.

 

[glitch4200]

At which point if my premises are correcly stated above I can conclude that EVCO undeniably has merit to counteract the UNNATURAL effects from the close proximimity of the lamps used for proper thermo regulations in our indoor kept tortoise. Since we don't have miles of vapor needed for those iR-A rays it really can't be denied the fact that that moisture is taken from the shell and skin instead of the vapor in our atmosphere. If this evco being used as a sunblock doesn't block the good rays and blocks the bad effects of the lamps out , how can we not consider this as a legitimate answer to this issue. Am I wrong ?

 

[glitch4200]

If my conclusion is correct that means it would be a disservice to the indoor kept tortoise to NOT have EVCO applied consistently to prevent that unnatural moisture loss. At which point I can estimate to say 2 - 3 applications would be needed a week to protect the tortoise from the lights. Since to me it seems to take at least 2 - 3 days to absorb into the shell completely. Again am I wrong for pondering these conclusions ?

 

[Elohi]

If my conclusion is correct that means it would be a disservice to the indoor kept tortoise to NOT have EVCO applied consistently to prevent that unnatural moisture loss. At which point I can estimate to say 2 - 3 applications would be needed a week to protect the tortoise from the lights. Since to me it seems to take at least 2 - 3 days to absorb into the shell completely. Again am I wrong for pondering these conclusions ?

A disservice not to apply? I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a disservice.

 

[glitch4200]

OK I can rephrase that . I feel in my opinion that if this is a legitimate issue with the drying effect of the lamps then if there is a natural oil that could help would it be in the best interest of the tortoise vs no application ? Any better? I felt that last statement was harsh

 

[Cowboy_Ken]

Here's how I see it. Rather than looking for an external fix for possibly bad effects of husbandry, correcting the cause would be the better focus. Does this make sense?

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

I don't think that you are wrong to ponder these conclusions, but it does seem premature to leap to them. I may be missing a connection here, but there is a disconnect in your graphics. The first two show UV in relation to skin (UVB of course, is the driver of dermal Vitamin D production and UVA is well within the optical range of tortoises and is likely a compliment to the environment). The third graph and related text focus on the IR range, which is to say heat. To block IR (infrared) would require actual heat shielding which would seem well beyond the capabilities of any cream and unwanted even if achievable. Better just to provide a temperature gradient, I would think. Lastly, the third graph is somewhat tricky as the y axis coordinates are a ratio, and therefore unit-less. Note that 100, as in percent, is the limit. So the comparative values for solar spectral output vs. solar energy are relative to each other and not to the other sources listed, such as halogen.
My point is not that your premise is incorrect or that your research isn't both interesting and helpful, but I do suggest a narrowed set of tested parameters and a more measured assumption of results.

 

[glitch4200]

I don't think that you are wrong to ponder these conclusions, but it does seem premature to leap to them. I may be missing a connection here, but there is a disconnect in your graphics. The first two show UV in relation to skin (UVB of course, is the driver of dermal Vitamin D production and UVA is well within the optical range of tortoises and is likely a compliment to the environment). The third graph and related text focus on the IR range, which is to say heat. To block IR (infrared) would require actual heat shielding which would seem well beyond the capabilities of any cream and unwanted even if achievable. Better just to provide a temperature gradient, I would think. Lastly, the third graph is somewhat tricky as the y axis coordinates are a ratio, and therefore unit-less. Note that 100, as in percent, is the limit. So the comparative values for solar spectral output vs. solar energy are relative to each other and not to the other sources listed, such as halogen.
My point is not that your premise is incorrect or that your research isn't both interesting and helpful, but I do suggest a narrowed set of tested parameters and a more measured assumption of results.

Your right. I jumped to different conclusions without much to go off of in terms of data observational or empirical. These are strictly my hypothesis to this subject. Which at any point please feel free to disprove my hypothesis and any premises I lay these conclusions on. I will be the first to say I am restricted in my knowledge in aspects of this debate. But if theories aren't established they can't be proven or disproven . Which after many many more months and years of observational data with this. I will still not be totally sure but be more inclined to lean towards a more backed up hypothesis.

 

[glitch4200]

I don't think that you are wrong to ponder these conclusions, but it does seem premature to leap to them. I may be missing a connection here, but there is a disconnect in your graphics. The first two show UV in relation to skin (UVB of course, is the driver of dermal Vitamin D production and UVA is well within the optical range of tortoises and is likely a compliment to the environment). The third graph and related text focus on the IR range, which is to say heat. To block IR (infrared) would require actual heat shielding which would seem well beyond the capabilities of any cream and unwanted even if achievable. Better just to provide a temperature gradient, I would think. Lastly, the third graph is somewhat tricky as the y axis coordinates are a ratio, and therefore unit-less. Note that 100, as in percent, is the limit. So the comparative values for solar spectral output vs. solar energy are relative to each other and not to the other sources listed, such as halogen.
My point is not that your premise is incorrect or that your research isn't both interesting and helpful, but I do suggest a narrowed set of tested parameters and a more measured assumption of results.

The first graph is showing the idea of the water vapor in our atmosphere and how it's needed to absorb some of the iR-A rays. That's was my intention for the first one. My second graph was only showing that IR-A is needed for deep heating not just topical heating from IR-B and IR-C. That's all for the second graph and the last graph was showing how there is no watrr vapor being absorbed from the lamp at all meaning it has to come from elsewhere. At least that is what I was trying to portray with using those graphs .

 

[glitch4200]

I don't think that you are wrong to ponder these conclusions, but it does seem premature to leap to them. I may be missing a connection here, but there is a disconnect in your graphics. The first two show UV in relation to skin (UVB of course, is the driver of dermal Vitamin D production and UVA is well within the optical range of tortoises and is likely a compliment to the environment). The third graph and related text focus on the IR range, which is to say heat. To block IR (infrared) would require actual heat shielding which would seem well beyond the capabilities of any cream and unwanted even if achievable. Better just to provide a temperature gradient, I would think. Lastly, the third graph is somewhat tricky as the y axis coordinates are a ratio, and therefore unit-less. Note that 100, as in percent, is the limit. So the comparative values for solar spectral output vs. solar energy are relative to each other and not to the other sources listed, such as halogen.
My point is not that your premise is incorrect or that your research isn't both interesting and helpful, but I do suggest a narrowed set of tested parameters and a more measured assumption of results.

I am not trying to block IR (infrared) known as heat as much as supply the IR-A rays some water molecules that are absent because the lack of appropriate atmospheric water vapor in the table tops of indoor habitats between the lamps and top if tortoise. That's why soaking is so important to replace lost water molecules in the tissue and beta keratin of tortoises . A point why this is so darn stressed here in this forum. But if the lights are on 12+ hours a day everyday is soaking 2 to 3 times a week really enough to counteract the fact of unnatural water absorption from IR-A rays from these lamps? I feel we could give them an edge to prevent this extra water loss by controlled application of EVCO.

 

[Alaskamike]

I agree that EVCO may present a solution for indoor enclosures with low humidity under lamps. Good job.

However , I tried this once with mine. Looked great BTW. Shiny.
Mine are raised in outdoor enclosures. Oldest 2 yo sulcata, 1 yo Aldabra

 

[Alaskamike]

.... And 3 yearling leopards. They have a heated hide / nightime box with a hound heater , no overhead lights and enjoy natural sunlight all year.

I find that 4 days after application to shell ( only) that water still beads up when I soak. I believe this negates somewhat the absorption / she'll hydration. And for me with a humid South Florida environment it seems counter productive.

I plan to continue to use this once per week on the plastron for its natural anti fungal and bacteria properties - but not on caprice.
Mike

 

[phebe121]

I use coconut oil and i do it once every 2 weeks i still see it bead up when i wash them and they have alot of new growth to them

 

[glitch4200]

I agree that EVCO may present a solution for indoor enclosures with low humidity under lamps. Good job.

However , I tried this once with mine. Looked great BTW. Shiny.
Mine are raised in outdoor enclosures. Oldest 2 yo sulcata, 1 yo Aldabra

It's nice to know that this could possibly be a great help in combination with proper husbandry and I totally see your point on the beading up, water and oil don't mix. But he has been getting bathed 3 times a week without much fuss and for the first time since I bought him a year ago I caught him actually physically drinking all cute like from his water dish. Never actually caught him doing it before. He looked at me like " yes that's right I'm drinking your ice cold water and I'm enjoying it too. "

With not needing lights and getting all the natural sunlight they do it does seem counterproductive for apply it other then for its other properties like anti bacteria/ antifungal. natural sunlight is the best. Unfortunately, Illinois suburbs are too dangerous for an outdoor enclosure. My backyard is huge and not fenced skunks and coons are huge problem. not risking it. So an inside habitat with direct supervised summer outside time is my only solution. Tomorrow is my next application of EVCO. I have noticed such a crazy color improvement all over his entire body since I started this. He's been more active then ever, sunbathing away in his favorite locations and greeting me when I come to pet him. He seems to like to sunbathe alittle longer then usual right after I apply it lol getting to about 98 degrees and passing out for hours if left undisturbed. I wonder what it feels like for him with vs without the oil if there is any difference in the way heat is distributed deep down. Hmm lol

 

[glitch4200]

So at 4pm yesterday nibbles got a bath for 25 minutes and i applied a nice layer of EVCO to his shell and the a small drop on top of his little head, it seemed dry. He enjoyed it of course. I really think I am seeing a smoothing of his scutes, totally just my opinion but I have compare and contrast pics to show you. You be the judge.. The lighting is different cuz the first pics of him are in his old habitat before I found this amazing forum and changed my tactics. There were a couple of scutes that seemed to "buckle" just a smidge along the very top of his vertebral and plueural scutes and it seems to have "smoothed out or flattened out" just a little bit.. But noticeable in my opinion.. Also the back bump and front bump seemed to be smoothing out as well.. Also and maybe it's just growth but I feel like the spacing between the scutes looks cleaner more defined lines then before less bunched up. He had an x-ray not to long ago and they gave me a copy of the disk and program and I was able to measure him with the measure tool in the program and he grew .5 inches since I got him last year in October. Here take a look, see for yourself.

 

[glitch4200]

The first 2 picture yoy can see the "buckling" type effect I am talking about and dryness.