Thoughts on year-after-year breeding on females

Just getting started breeding Ball Pythons (this will be 2nd breeding season), and was wondering what some of your thoughts on keeping a girl breeding for multiple years in a row.

Currently I have 4 big normal girls that I bred last season (3 layed, 1 re-absorbed), that I'm trying to breed again this year. They are all 1800g+, with the biggest being well over 2500g.

I had planned on giving these four girls next season off, but after talking to a couple people, I'm kind of leaning towards letting them breed again next year if they're up to size. I have also heard quite a few people saying it should be 1 year on, 1 year off.

I have 3 other normal girls and a couple het and co-dom girls that should be up to size next year (if the BP gods permit), but like normal, the more girls in breeding, the more babies.

Thoughts?

honestly, its up to her.

if she goes again and is healthy and of good weight,
she'll be perfectly fine to go year after year.

I have 4 girls in my collection that have bred for 8 years in a row. (3 years for me, and 5 years for the guy I got them from) and they are all fine. It was what they are supposed to do... and likely what they do in the wild.

Ball pythons live for along time and are built to reproduce till they die. As long as they have good weight they will be fine to breed again.

I'll have to agree. As long as they gain their weight back and are healthy, breed them. They will take a break when they need to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bishop40k

1 re-absorbed

---

I agree with everyone else but I have to point this out. They absorb, not re-absorbed. Re-absorb would mean they absorbed them more than once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clear

I agree with everyone else but I have to point this out. They absorb, not re-absorbed. Re-absorb would mean they absorbed them more than once.

---

Actually, if you want to be really nit-picky, the word is resorb. :P

I believe this is derived from the words re-absorb, and so yes, in that regard it seems that it should be incorrect, but resorb is the actual medical term for the degredation and assimilation of a physiologic structure.

Though I think "absorb" would be correct as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

Actually, if you want to be really nit-picky, the word is resorb. :P

I believe this is derived from the words re-absorb, and so yes, in that regard it seems that it should be incorrect, but resorb is the actual medical term for the degredation and assimilation of a physiologic structure.

Though I think "absorb" would be correct as well.

---

ab·sorb: Take in or soak up (energy, or a liquid or other substance) by chemical or physical action, typically gradually.

re·sorb: Absorb (something) again.

Both definitions taken from google. Snakes do not resorb, they absorb. Resorb would mean they formed follicles, absorbed them, formed more follicles and resorbed them also.

Ok, so multi-year breeding is fine as long as the girl is back to weight.

Good to get some comments on this, guess I'll have a couple extra girls that may be breeding again next year. From 5 last year (2 didn't lay), 4 this year (1 of 2 from last year didn't want to get back to weight), and to around 9-10 next year (IF I don't buy any more adult females this winter/spring). Not a bad start for 3rd year breeding bps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clear

ab·sorb: Take in or soak up (energy, or a liquid or other substance) by chemical or physical action, typically gradually.

re·sorb: Absorb (something) again.

Both definitions taken from google. Snakes do not resorb, they absorb. Resorb would mean they formed follicles, absorbed them, formed more follicles and resorbed them also.

---

You took only the first definition from Google, and ignored the second:

2. Biology To dissolve and assimilate (bone tissue, for example).

... I'm not arguing that the roots of the word could be construed as redundant, but resorb IS a term in biology for the dissolution and assimilation of a bodily structure.

If you do a Google search for "oocyte resorption" or "follicle resorption," you will get multiple hits of academic papers discussing the exact phenomenon referenced in this thread.

If you do a Google search for "oocyte absorption" or "follicle absorption," you don't get anything meaningful as this is not the commonly used term for this phenomenon.

I believe that the etymology of this is that "absorption" would imply the assimilation of substances from outside the body, while "resorption" indicates that the substances comprising the structure being dissolved originated from the body and are simply being re-assimilated.

:weirdface :weirdface :weirdface