Colin Weavor's theory question

[MaxT815]

In one of Colin Weaver's articles he states that...

"Pair Genetically Greater Boys with Genetically Lower Girls …But Never the Other Way Around
(Put Another Way: Never Breed a More Expensive Female to a Less Expensive Male)

It is reasonable to buy a male dominant/co-dom morph and use it to make more of the same (e.g. breed it to a normal female). However, you should never do that with a female. When you acquire female dominant/co-dominant morphs it should be with the full intent of breeding it to a male whose genetics are different (and typically of greater financial value than hers). It is economically effective to acquire a male dominant/co-dominant animal and breed it to a genetically lower female. The opposite is never true. Do not acquire a dominant/co-dominant female and breed it to a genetically lower male. Please note that ‘genetically lower’ refers to the financial value of the morph. For example:

• It is sane to buy a pastel male and breed it to a normal female. It is insane to by a normal male and breed it to a pastel female.
• It is sane to buy a champagne male and breed it to a pastel female. It is insane to buy a champagne female and breed it to a pastel male.
• It is sane to buy a silver surfer male and breed it to a ghost female. It is insane to buy a silver surfer female and breed it to a ghost male.
• It is sane to buy a male albino and breed it to a het albino female. It is insane to buy an albino female and breed it to a het albino male. Please note that your sanity is also in question if you breed an albino male to an albino female. At the very least breed female albinos with a male who is albino plus something else (albino spider, albino pinstripe, albino black pastel, etc.).
• Do not buy a pastel female with plans of breeding her to a pastel male (even though you can make super pastels). It is no longer true that breeders intentionally produce super pastel ball pythons; they are almost always the product of missed opportunity in a different pairing (e.g. lemon blast x pastel lesser can produce super pastels but it is not what the breeder was trying for). A female pastel bred to any other co-dom morph will, in the best case, always produce babies that are worth more money than a super past.

Anybody know WHY this is so? He states that it is and gives multiple examples but he doesnt really say why. With recessives specifically why would it not be wise to breed a Het Albino male to a visual female, I mean I understand business wise obviously you buy het females early and buy a visual make when the girls are ready and the price dropped slightly but is this the only reason he is suggesting this rule or is there a genetic related reason? I heard a while back that the gene power comes from the male side, suggesting maybe throwing more combos or visuals if the male is of higher genetics?? I dont know anybody else have any thoughts?

[MootWorm]

In one of Colin Weaver's articles he states that...

"Pair Genetically Greater Boys with Genetically Lower Girls …But Never the Other Way Around
(Put Another Way: Never Breed a More Expensive Female to a Less Expensive Male)

It is reasonable to buy a male dominant/co-dom morph and use it to make more of the same (e.g. breed it to a normal female). However, you should never do that with a female. When you acquire female dominant/co-dominant morphs it should be with the full intent of breeding it to a male whose genetics are different (and typically of greater financial value than hers). It is economically effective to acquire a male dominant/co-dominant animal and breed it to a genetically lower female. The opposite is never true. Do not acquire a dominant/co-dominant female and breed it to a genetically lower male. Please note that ‘genetically lower’ refers to the financial value of the morph. For example:

• It is sane to buy a pastel male and breed it to a normal female. It is insane to by a normal male and breed it to a pastel female.
• It is sane to buy a champagne male and breed it to a pastel female. It is insane to buy a champagne female and breed it to a pastel male.
• It is sane to buy a silver surfer male and breed it to a ghost female. It is insane to buy a silver surfer female and breed it to a ghost male.
• It is sane to buy a male albino and breed it to a het albino female. It is insane to buy an albino female and breed it to a het albino male. Please note that your sanity is also in question if you breed an albino male to an albino female. At the very least breed female albinos with a male who is albino plus something else (albino spider, albino pinstripe, albino black pastel, etc.).
• Do not buy a pastel female with plans of breeding her to a pastel male (even though you can make super pastels). It is no longer true that breeders intentionally produce super pastel ball pythons; they are almost always the product of missed opportunity in a different pairing (e.g. lemon blast x pastel lesser can produce super pastels but it is not what the breeder was trying for). A female pastel bred to any other co-dom morph will, in the best case, always produce babies that are worth more money than a super past.

Anybody know WHY this is so? He states that it is and gives multiple examples but he doesnt really say why. With recessives specifically why would it not be wise to breed a Het Albino male to a visual female, I mean I understand business wise obviously you buy het females early and buy a visual make when the girls are ready and the price dropped slightly but is this the only reason he is suggesting this rule or is there a genetic related reason? I heard a while back that the gene power comes from the male side, suggesting maybe throwing more combos or visuals if the male is of higher genetics?? I dont know anybody else have any thoughts?

This is all from a financial perspective; there is not any biological/genetic reasons for these standards aside from getting a greater return on investment in the form of genetically 'greater' babies.

With recessives, which is more expensive: an albino male or female? Of course, the answer is a female. Now this female can only produce 1 clutch in a season when paired with your het albino male. But for the price of 1 albino female, you can get 4-6 het albino females (depending on age, quality, your negotiating skills, etc). But the point is, you can get a clutch out of each of them if paired with an albino male.

However, if you do this the other way around, you'd be spending thousands of dollars on albino females to pair with a single het albino male. Does that make sense?

[MarkS]

It's just opinion and I believe it has more to do with profitability and business sense then any other reason. They're really all just different paint jobs on the same animal, if you're just a hobbyist and don't really care about making a lot of money you can pretty much disregard this.

[bfirecat]

Like the others have said, this is purely from a financial standpoint (trying to maximize revenue).

[Mike41793]

It's about the money and potential money that can come from the combos. Males can breed more than one female, but females can only breed to one male.

If you have 0.2 pastels, would you rather breed a pinstripe male or a bumblee male to them? You'd want the bee male to put to them so you can have a shot at Killerbees. Lemonblasts are ok, but you wanna maximize the monetary value and breeding value of the animals produced. If you get 5 healthy eggs from each female having 10shots at a 3gene animal is better than 10shots at only a 2 gene animal.

EDIT: as others have said though, if you're not in it to maximize profits then you don't have to follow this. It's not a rule or anything, just good business.

[don15681]

this statement has a lot of logic to it. and I understand what he's saying. but there's exception to just about every rule. one is, I have a big female fire that very light, I also have a super light male fire. I want a male super fire from a breeding where I know the male and female that produces my super fire. this is very important to me. also if there's a combo out there that hot and a easy sell with a nice profit. I will breed for it over something that's more and is a hard sell. but I do understand his point and for the most, agree with it as a breeder.

[Raven01]

The "never" should be taken with a grain of salt.
If you bought a cheap normal male as a pet and as he grew on you you decided you wanted to try your hand with another and possibly breeding it does make sense pair him with even a super-pastel or similar female.
My reasoning is, co-dom females in this scenario will produce either 50% or 100%(if super form) offspring from this pairing and, half of those will be female(if the Odds Gods are kind). This can fund(or cut down) the cost picking up a higher end male to pair with your female.

If that is your situation, I would still suggest looking at your normal critically and deciding what traits he has that may work with different morphs. A super light normal might not be a good candidate for darker snakes but work really well with paler morphs.

But, from a dollars and cents perspective everything Colin says makes a lot of sense. So, if your desire is to invest in your hobby I would heed the advice established breeders offer and avoid getting caught up in any excitement.

I plan on breeding on a limited scale myself but, my intention is not about the money at all. I expect to subsidize my hobby (feeder expenses etc) and if I get really lucky maybe be able to acquire a snake or two I would otherwise have trouble justifying the expense of. And, even then much of what Colin states would help me reach my humble goals with a smaller dent in my pocketbook.

[Raven01]

this statement has a lot of logic to it. and I understand what he's saying. but there's exception to just about every rule. one is, I have a big female fire that very light, I also have a super light male fire. I want a male super fire from a breeding where I know the male and female that produces my super fire. this is very important to me. also if there's a combo out there that hot and a easy sell with a nice profit. I will breed for it over something that's more and is a hard sell. but I do understand his point and for the most, agree with it as a breeder.

X2 ^^^^ this makes so much sense for most situations.

A Super Fire or Ivory, etc female is a superior breeder to a normal since the "plainest" snake it can produce is a Fire or YB. And, if you produce your super you are 100% sure of it's quality.
And, honestly I believe there is alot of sales or trades to be made in the under $3000 and the under $1000 categories.