1,840+ field-tested husbandry protocols, each one run by at least three independent keepers for a minimum of ninety days before it ships. Filter by species, husbandry system, or citation tier. Trust the color bar on the left edge before you trust the words.
Every row below is a published protocol. The colored bar on the left of each card marks its citation tier — green for peer-reviewed, muted for breeder-log, accent for editorial. The "Last reviewed" date is the date the 90-day keeper review pipeline closed, not the date the page went live.
Field-tested across 17 enclosures over a 14-month window. Documents the relationship between lamp height, mesh attenuation, and Ferguson-zone basking behavior, with lamp-replacement intervals calibrated to 12-month output decay curves from three independent meter logs.
A two-hide rotation protocol tested across 31 individuals in rack and tub systems. Tracks shed completeness, dysecdysis rate, and ambient-vs-microclimate humidity differentials. Includes the controversial finding that 24/7 high humidity reduces, rather than improves, shed quality in adult males.
Compiled from breeder submission logs to the IguanaNaut Mortality & Morbidity Database. Compares growth curves, reproductive output, and MBD incidence across geckos fed exclusively on commercial meal-replacement powder versus rotation diets. Honest about the dataset's limits.
A position piece, not a research protocol. Walks through the failure modes that pushed IguanaNaut's editorial board to refuse any incoming-animal protocol under 90 days, including a documented case of cryptosporidium shedding detected at day 78 in an otherwise asymptomatic import.
Showing 4 of 1,847 · sorted by most recently reviewed
Every protocol in this archive carries a left-edge color bar. The color is not a recommendation — it is a label of source. Before you trust the words, read the bar.
Every husbandry claim links to a peer-reviewed paper, a veterinary reference, or a published measurement from the Mortality & Morbidity Database. The protocol itself has been run by three or more independent keepers over at least 90 days. This is the highest source tier we publish.
Reviewers required: ≥ 3 keepers + 1 DVM or herpetologist. Review window: 90+ days minimum.
Drawn from long-form breeder logs submitted to our database. Useful for cohort-level observations — growth curves, feeding conversion, breeding outcomes — where individual case studies don't generalize. Clearly labeled as observational, not experimental.
Reviewers required: ≥ 3 breeders + 1 editor. Review window: 90+ days minimum.
Position pieces, standards documents, and opinion protocols written by the editorial board. These set the publication's working norms (e.g. the 90-day quarantine standard) but are not husbandry instructions. Read them as policy, not as a how-to.
Reviewers required: Full editorial board (9 members). Review window: Until consensus.
The 90-day, three-keeper minimum is non-negotiable. No protocol has ever shipped under it, and no keeper or advertiser has ever been given an exception. If a card doesn't carry one of these three bars, it isn't a protocol — it's a draft, and drafts don't live in the library.
Every protocol you read on this site has been written, then re-written, then run. The first draft is usually wrong in ways only a keeper in a basement with twenty animals and a UV meter can catch. We don't publish until three of those keepers — strangers to each other, paid nothing — agree the protocol works in their own enclosures, with their own animals, for at least ninety days.
This is not a fast process. It is, by design, slower than a forum thread, slower than a YouTube tutorial, slower than the husbandry advice that circulates in Discord servers. It is also, in our twelve years of publishing, the only filter we have found that consistently separates what works from what sounds right. The keepers who run these protocols are not anonymous; they are named on every article, alongside the veterinarians who sign off on the medical claims.
We will not shorten the pipeline to publish faster. We will not accept sponsorship in exchange for a tier color. We will not call a breeder's opinion "peer-reviewed" because the breeder is well-known. If a protocol fails review — and roughly one in six drafts does — it stays out of the library, and the keepers who tested it get paid anyway. That is the editorial standard. That is the bar.
— The editorial board, IguanaNaut Media, LLC
Subscribe to the IguanaNaut weekly brief and the latest field-tested protocols arrive in your inbox already filtered by your species list — with the citation tier marked before you open the email. No algorithm, no sponsored slots, no rehashed forum posts.
One-click unsubscribe. We do not sell or share the list. Read the editorial standards before you subscribe.
