Grow Faster, Breed Sooner? (NOT POWER FEEDING)

We don't know exactly how long he has been doing this for, but my money is on that he started this with his 2004 hatchlings, which would now be coming up on 17 years old at this point, and he says are still alive and well. Putting myself in his shoes, he says this study took place in 2002-2003, he got results in a few months, why would he not try this the very next season if he wanted to try it? 16 years and some change isn't 30 years, but it's still plenty long enough to say this is a much different beast than powerfeeding. Without someone willing to put it to the test like Wilbanks is doing, we can't possibly know. Hopefully he answers back and we can really confirm the exact time frame but I wouldn't blame him if he doesn't want to after the way he was treated.

It makes me upset that so many people demonize breeders the way they do and throw around accusations about them "only caring about money". I know for a fact many of them care deeply for their animals, often more than they care about humans. Maybe a lot of you weren't around or don't remember what it was like to buy a BP in the 90s and prior, WC from the pet store, full of mites, dehydrated, and starving. I remember vividly and do not wish to go back to that. It is these forerunners that helped us get to where we are, where we don't have to have 100 WC die for each one that lives to see 5yo. It is them trying new things, trying to figure out the best ways to keep them healthy and thriving which has pushed the market for enclosures, heating, hides, and such to improve. That doesn't mean we can't criticize their methods and try to improve upon them further, but we should be doing it fairly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikkubus

We don't know exactly how long he has been doing this for, but my money is on that he started this with his 2004 hatchlings, which would now be coming up on 17 years old at this point, and he says are still alive and well. Putting myself in his shoes, he says this study took place in 2002-2003, he got results in a few months, why would he not try this the very next season if he wanted to try it?

---

Because he didn't know what the results would be after just one season (other than they made babies)...its impossible to tell. So to do it the next season would mean the results of the first season out way any consequences that may be incurred. -I touched on this earlier and the only thing that thought process does is reinforce what I said about human nature. I don't even understand the thought process for doing it the second season using justification from what happened the first season unless it was only about producing. Clear this up for me please. :confusd:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikkubus

16 years and some change isn't 30 years, but it's still plenty long enough to say this is a much different beast than powerfeeding. Without someone willing to put it to the test like Wilbanks is doing, we can't possibly know. Hopefully he answers back and we can really confirm the exact time frame but I wouldn't blame him if he doesn't want to after the way he was treated.

---

Breeders would be doing this and it wouldn't be a secret...(it wouldn't be hard to tell who is putting out what gene and how soon).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikkubus

It makes me upset that so many people demonize breeders the way they do and throw around accusations about them "only caring about money". I know for a fact many of them care deeply for their animals, often more than they care about humans. Maybe a lot of you weren't around or don't remember what it was like to buy a BP in the 90s and prior, WC from the pet store, full of mites, dehydrated, and starving. I remember vividly and do not wish to go back to that. It is these forerunners that helped us get to where we are, where we don't have to have 100 WC die for each one that lives to see 5yo. It is them trying new things, trying to figure out the best ways to keep them healthy and thriving which has pushed the market for enclosures, heating, hides, and such to improve. That doesn't mean we can't criticize their methods and try to improve upon them further, but we should be doing it fairly.

---

Demonize? Really? Is that so you can make him a martyr? I took the harsher stance on this thread and it was far from making him look evil...I never even said it was wrong. Wrong, is for folks to decide on their own but one can't make that distinction if they are not capable (or willing) to see things for what they are...



I've stated what the goal was and what motivated that goal.

The strawman deflection you present about how things used to be is meaningless related to this topic. If you want to make him out to be a martyr, then please share what you think the motivation and the goal was.

Just a reminder to all of you responding: this is the sort of topic that gets some pretty strong opinions - let's keep this to a discussion of the technique in question, and avoid directing any hostility at fellow members that don't agree with your position. Do not make this personal.

We might never all agree on this, & as time goes on, we may even find ourselves changing our own opinions too, the more we think about it. That's really what discussions are for- a chance to consider the "other side", & that won't happen unless we keep our cool. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoingPostal

Do we know what their feeding frequency is in the wild? I find it pretty gross to experiment on animals solely for the purpose of breeding and making money off them sooner and it doesn't give me a lot of confidence that health, long term or short, is a main concern.

---

This is from a study on digestion. That's how their digestive system is meant to work. It's like a car, if you keep driving it's more efficient than driving, stopping, driving, stopping, driving, etc. That extra energy goes to growing the male up quicker, not forcing more energy into him to grow him up with negative side effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoingPostal

Why does he only do it on males and only until breeding size if he truly thinks it's so safe and healthy for them? I saw it asked on that thread a few times but didn't really see an answer on how old the males have lived or how they are doing now, seems like many suggested they were likely sold off as breeders seem to do quite quickly to move onto the next best thing so was there any true long term info or just they "seem fine", which doesn't tell us anything.

---

Because it doesn't work on females. Females need to grow up slower because they have more that needs to develop, it takes a lot more work to develop, lay eggs, and incubate eggs then it does to produce sperm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoingPostal

I saw it asked on that thread a few times but didn't really see an answer on how old the males have lived or how they are doing now, seems like many suggested they were likely sold off as breeders seem to do quite quickly to move onto the next best thing so was there any true long term info or just they "seem fine", which doesn't tell us anything.

---

There's no reason it would hurt them. They save energy from their metabolism which goes to growing them up faster. You're not forcing extra energy into them (power feeding) and therefore there's no reason it would hurt. You can't expect him just to keep all of his males he's tried it on to see the long term effects. It's not financially practical for his business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoingPostal

Huh? Is this plague of rats so consistent that they are eating them daily but only for a year? I'm interested in feeding a diet that is closely aligned to what an animal would naturally eat, in those frequencies. I'm not sure that biggest breeder = best interest of the animals as that's rarely true in other species from my experience, what would you say he does over and above other breeders for his snakes? It may have been the same person repeating, I scanned it quick and am not part of that forum but my question was more about the answer, did he give any info as far as lifespan, breeding rates long term, any issues, any necropsies done and the results? Does he still have those males even? It's interesting that people feel feeding them daily is ok if they are willing, but breeding females young isn't because then you get fewer eggs long term, so it's not really about what the animal is willing to do at all, it's solely the dollar factor. I can't speak from that regard, I don't breed and I wouldn't breed for money if I did as it's not my interest.

---

Noone who breeds snakes prioritizes their health over everything else. If not we wouldn't breed them (very taxing), we would dedicate our entire house to setting up gigantic trees with dozens of temperature gradients and food whenever they want. That's unrealistic, nobody's going to do that. However where is the border between prioritizing health of the snake and the owner's practicality. If you don't breed for money then what do you breed for, probably because you enjoy it. Different things motivate different people, passion might motivate you and money might motivate someone else, who are you to judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gio

3. more closely mirrors their feeding in the wild
How so? I actually find this to be the complete opposite of snakes feeding in the wild. Even higher metabolism colubrids have time away from constant meals. A royal python, which is known to go off feed for months, sometimes a full year will eat on its own schedule. They are ambush predators and if they are lucky they may eat more frequently, but Mother Nature has a way of making things difficult.

I'd venture to guess the snakes that fast and eat only when they want to eat will out live the animals that are fed constantly.

All of that said, I tend to agree that an animal that gets off to a good start may have an advantage in the wild. Only the strong survive, but being realistic, success in the wild for reptiles may come down to eating a handful of times a year and dodging predators.

---

I don't know about you but I'm not ever going to try to replicate the wild. Very few snakes survive past maturity and can reproduce and food isn't stable. I don't agree with feeding a 25 gram mouse daily instead of weekly but I do agree with feeding 5 gram mice 5 days a week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikkubus

The way I interpreted that part of the article was not that feeding them more often requires less energy, but that feeding a smaller prey item uses less energy, and the feeding more often increased metabolism and growth potential. I may have misunderstood though. I think a young BP's life naturally lines up with "feast" based on the time of year, and that 6 month mark lines up with the famine. Obviously there are going to be smaller time frames in between with variation.

---

This works by keeping the digestive metabolism always working instead of using it once a week. This preserves energy and that excess energy goes to the animal growing and maturing faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugsplox

I think everyone has made some really solid points and I'm glad we're all being respectful and friendly discussing this, as that's clearly not quite the way the Morphmarket post went.

---

I came from Morphmarket and I agree that it got a little out of hand though it was mostly people just criticising the ethics of it without understanding what was even happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugsplox

I don't think anyone here or on the Morphmarket forums, including the breeder, are trying to claim that this was started with the snake's best interest in mind.

---

Who does put the animal as the best interest, as I stated above no breeder does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugsplox

Mike hasn't shown me a "pro" other than getting his males to breeding size quicker. For him it's a pro because he's running a business, and regardless of what our feelings are for it, he's trying to make money, the hobby is his livelihood. For me it's not worth trying because I'm not trying to breed anything for pleasure or profit.

---

He's trying to make money just as every breeder has a certain goal. Whatever motivates the breeder. What are you trying to breed for? Maybe increasing the genetic quality of the animals. If so then it's still pleasure and/or profit because if you got nothing out of it you likely wouldn't be breeding. Why should we improve genetic quality? So they look prettier? Maybe so they lay more eggs? Whatever genetic quality means to you it sure isn't for the animal and their conservation in nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gio

you will read that Vin and Eugene Bassett found boas to grow more when NOT being fed.

---

That is totally irrelevant. We're on a discussion about Royal (Ball) Pythons, not boas. The concepts do not apply throughout the species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gio

Put the animal's wellbeing first.

---

As I said above, no breeder puts the animals well being first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bns

So it's ok if money is involved? How about with puppies?

We're heading deep into ethics here and we are just talking about a creature that gets killed on site because of what it is.

I'm not trying to take some ethics high road or say I'm better than someone else because I don't breed for money...This started in the 70's for me...it was about fascination/understanding at first and it still is today.

---

I believe what Ball_Pythons4life was trying to say is that everybody is motivated by money, just in varying amounts. If a bp you produce sells for 5x what it's worth won't you be happy? He's saying that money is a motivator even if it doesn't come before the animals safety.
I agree, I also keep/breed for fascination and enjoyment. However even in doing that it's not for the animals well being. Do you keep all of your snakes in 1000+ gallon enclosures? No, and I don't expect you to. It's all about the balance between practicality, motivator, and safety and wellbeing.

Tl;dr: No breeder places their animals well being above everything else and breeding is about the balance between practicality, motivator (what motivates the keeper/breeder, maybe money or enjoyment), and the animals safety and well being. Feeding more smaller meals saves energy with digestion which causes extra energy saved which grows to maturing the male quicker.

Please provide links and evidence as to how their digestive system is supposed to work and proof this wouldn't possibly hurt them since you seem 100% positive and don't see any need for long term evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erie_herps

...

I agree, I also keep/breed for fascination and enjoyment. However even in doing that it's not for the animals well being. Do you keep all of your snakes in 1000+ gallon enclosures? No, and I don't expect you to. It's all about the balance between practicality, motivator, and safety and wellbeing.

---

If you have kept sensitive reptiles for decades you would know that large 'pretty' enclosures that make people feel good about what they can only see and process in the front of their brain rarely is the best way to keep the reptile in a manner that is most beneficial to them. These results are known and can be seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erie_herps

:... Feeding more smaller meals saves energy with digestion which causes extra energy saved which grows to maturing the male quicker.

---

You need to spend time researching longevity in reptiles (or most anything else for that matter). After that if you can explain how this can possibly benefit them long term it would be a hypothesis that opposes factual basis -it is that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erie_herps

It's not financially practical for his business.


Noone who breeds snakes prioritizes their health over everything else.

Who does put the animal as the best interest, as I stated above no breeder does.

He's trying to make money just as every breeder has a certain goal.

As I said above, no breeder puts the animals well being first.

I believe what Ball_Pythons4life was trying to say is that everybody is motivated by money, just in varying amounts. If a bp you produce sells for 5x what it's worth won't you be happy? He's saying that money is a motivator even if it doesn't come before the animals safety.
I agree, I also keep/breed for fascination and enjoyment. However even in doing that it's not for the animals well being.

No breeder places their animals well being above everything else .

---

One last thing...interesting words^.

Your common theme of placing everyone in the same category because they breed is about justifying something. ;)

Are you unable to make a distinction between how an animal is cared for? The methods used to do so? The goals the breeder has? The motivation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erie_herps

Different things motivate different people, passion might motivate you and money might motivate someone else, who are you to judge.

---

It sounds great as if you are taking some moral high ground but it isn't reality. Never in my life have I tried to accelerate a creature to sexual maturity...-I am the judge. I judged the breeder in questions by his actions and words. I've judged you by yours and I've been judged by mine. Tell me about anyone who hasn't...


One last thing. What was the original motivation and goal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bns

One last thing. What was the original motivation and goal?

---

It is never explicitly stated what hos motivation and goal was, though it could be two things, he could be experimenting to find out ways to make money faster, or he could be experimenting for his own enjoyment. I think its safe to assume its the first one, but he is making a living out of his snakes, so I don't think he deserves so much hate for trying to find new ways to make money faster, as that is his goal in breeding, even though it might not be yours.

I would go with Mike Wilbanks advice he is a veteran. That is interesting he suggested feeding daily. I did not know that BP's would actually eat everyday lol.

Omfg, did no one listen to the podcast I linked here?!?! A feeding event for a snake literally increases their gastrointestinal tract organ size from 15-50% and changes their blood viscosity from “blood” to “maple syrup”. As stated by the guest on the show, a PHD in biology, this is equivalent to “eating a cheeseburger while jogging”. Now imagine doing that every effing day... NO. Just NO. NO.
Just to reiterate... NO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ball_Pythons4life

It is never explicitly stated what hos motivation and goal was, though it could be two things, he could be experimenting to find out ways to make money faster, or he could be experimenting for his own enjoyment. I think its safe to assume its the first one, but he is making a living out of his snakes, so I don't think he deserves so much hate for trying to find new ways to make money faster, as that is his goal in breeding, even though it might not be yours.

---

Correct. It is about money or I could even somewhat agree about possibly his own enjoyment, but for sure, it wasn't about what could be best for the male bp's...

Your post leaves no doubt on your position...Its ok to experiment with the health of the snake -against known science- when its about personal enjoyment, money and breeding.

Erie explains why the long term affects don't matter:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erie_herps

...You can't expect him just to keep all of his males he's tried it on to see the long term effects. It's not financially practical for his business. ...

---

The long term outcome doesn't matter at all...the males are disposable....bred for their genes and sold off like playing cards to someone else who wants those genes.

I'd rather discuss the science related to this but it isn't possible because the science only points one way when talking about longevity and health.

The folks making an effort to defend the subject at hand continue to show the truth behind the curtain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcrook

Omfg, did no one listen to the podcast I linked here?!?! A feeding event for a snake literally increases their gastrointestinal tract organ size from 15-50% and changes their blood viscosity from “blood” to “maple syrup”. As stated by the guest on the show, a PHD in biology, this is equivalent to “eating a cheeseburger while jogging”. Now imagine doing that every effing day... NO. Just NO. NO.
Just to reiterate... NO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Ok so no, I did not listen to your podcast (really don't have the time) but was this podcast talking about a regular sized meal? Was it talking about royals, or some snake that's 2/3 times the size? If it was talking about a regular sized meal when it used the cheeseburger analogy, wouldn't it be very different if they were talking about small meals, like its equivalent to eating the bun when you jog? the amount of food they are eating is not different, so its not power feeding (feeding large meals daily by force feeding or enticing them)

I took a little time to type this up, because I would consider myself one of the the more vocal people on this thread, and I wanted to make sure that it was clear how and why I'm at this point with this topic.

I listened to to the podcast that jmcrook shared, I also took a deep dive into some of the names that Gio posted earlier in the thread, and I have to say my opinion on this has changed since my earlier posts, and it changed because I was wrong. The initial question I had was does this method effect the longevity and health of the snakes, and I defended the ethics of it by arguing that we didn't know, but as it turns out, we do know, or at least we have enough data to make an educated judgment.

The issue being debated now isn't "what effect does this have on the snake" but "does the breeder care and should I care." As bns pointed out, profit taints data. I said before that I understand why Wilbanks tried this, because he's trying to run a business, and IF it doesn't effect the snakes than I don't see an issue. Take a look at the information that some of our peers have shared and I think you'll find, as I did, that that IF goes away really quickly. You can't keep arguing the science if you're not going to review the science being provided for you.

I think this entire thread which was started with, what I would consider, a lot of scientific questions up for discussion has devolved into an ethical debate. End of the day, to each their own, just remember your money is the loudest voice when it comes to addressing ethical issues with breeders. If you don't agree with a method, a morph, a species, don't support it. I'm not telling anyone not to buy from Wilbanks, I did, and I've spoken many times about how easy he was to deal with. That being said, would I buy from him again? That's an ethical question you have to ask yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcrook

... As stated by the guest on the show, a PHD in biology, this is equivalent to “eating a cheeseburger while jogging”. Now imagine doing that every effing day... NO. Just NO. NO.
Just to reiterate... NO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

So that's bad then? ;) How about swimming laps with a cheeseburger, is that okay? 'Cause that's really my favorite thing... (kidding!) :rofl:

I agree with Hugsplox (post #63 above)- was "on the fence" initially, but I'll take "science", thank you very much.

I don't know about you but I'm not ever going to try to replicate the wild. Very few snakes survive past maturity and can reproduce and food isn't stable. I don't agree with feeding a 25 gram mouse daily instead of weekly but I do agree with feeding 5 gram mice 5 days a week.

Replicating the "wild" and following a pattern of evolution are two separate entities.

Feeding an animal the way it should be fed based on scientific studies of the said animal's physiology is not replicating the wild.

As I stated earlier, captivity is a different bag of tricks, but it DOES NOT change millions of years of evolution.

Elephants in captivity are not fed meat because they don't eat meat in the wild. They are fed a diet that would resemble their natural diet. A diet they have evolved to handle.

Feeding in that manner does not replicate the "wild" as your statement suggests.

Feeding a snake in a manner that replicates what it is biologically developed to handle is simply common sense.

Not only did JM's podcast link cover this, the link I provided does as well.

Boas and pythons may not be the same species as you pointed out.

Fair enough, but they do display convergent evolution.

Knowing that, one can surmise that not only are their hunting techniques similar, so are their reptilian digestive traits.

If ball pythons were designed to eat daily, they would have evolved to be constantly foraging predators. They are NOT.

They are ambush predators that depend on seasonality and the breeding and migration patterns of other animals.

If anybody cares to wade through this you will find some very interesting information.

https://jeb.biologists.org/content/210/2/340

It is not directly related to the discussion here but it covers the various stages of digestion and energy level usage that infrequently fed, sit and wait, ambush tactic snakes experience.

"That is totally irrelevant. We're on a discussion about Royal (Ball) Pythons, not boas. The concepts do not apply throughout the species."

As I mentioned above, convergent evolution is at play. Completely different species have evolved to develop similar characteristics, traits and physiology.

Sit and wait, ambush predators have a system built for long periods of fasting. That includes boas and yes,,, pythons. Forging colubrids are noted to have differences in the way they process their prey.

Taxing the system of an animal that eats infrequently with an unnatural, daily feeding regime will eventually have negative consequences. Big meal, small meal, normal meal, the system still has to work and rest. Not allowing that natural process to occur unhealthy.

In fairness, the consequences may be reversible if the snake is allowed to go back to a normal cycle. You may be able to get away with daily feeding for a short period of time though I'm guessing on that point.

What I see here is unnatural feeding to attain rapid size for earlier breeding plain and simple. Nothing benefits the male royal by doing this.


Over feeding and over breeding will take a toll on the health of almost any living thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoingPostal

Please provide links and evidence as to how their digestive system is supposed to work and proof this wouldn't possibly hurt them since you seem 100% positive and don't see any need for long term evidence.

---

The original Morphmarket post said that this was from a study on digestion. So no I don't think that their digestion system would do this if it were harmful to the snake. I may be wrong but until I see concrete evidence that the snake is suffering problems then I assume this method safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bns

If you have kept sensitive reptiles for decades you would know that large 'pretty' enclosures that make people feel good about what they can only see and process in the front of their brain rarely is the best way to keep the reptile in a manner that is most beneficial to them. These results are known and can be seen.

You need to spend time researching longevity in reptiles (or most anything else for that matter). After that if you can explain how this can possibly benefit them long term it would be a hypothesis that opposes factual basis -it is that simple.

---

Yes the decorative enclosures are usually better for the viewer and not the snake. However keepers that keep their snakes in the larger enclosures say that their snake nearly never refuses food. A large enclosure is much better than racks because the snake is under very little stress. I personally keep most of my reptiles in racks but I'm not claiming that I prioritize the animals health over everything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bns

Your common theme of placing everyone in the same category because they breed is about justifying something. ;)

Are you unable to make a distinction between how an animal is cared for? The methods used to do so? The goals the breeder has? The motivation?

It sounds great as if you are taking some moral high ground but it isn't reality. Never in my life have I tried to accelerate a creature to sexual maturity...-I am the judge. I judged the breeder in questions by his actions and words. I've judged you by yours and I've been judged by mine. Tell me about anyone who hasn't...

One last thing. What was the original motivation and goal?

---

I myself breed geckos and keep most of them in a rack system. However nobody that breeds reptiles places their animals health over everything else or they wouldn't breed them. Each breeder has something that motivates them and keeping & breeding reptiles is about the balance between them. I think breeders should be able to experiment with care types to achieve certain things. If you could get a snake to lay more eggs with no negative effects then would you try it? Even if you didn't would you have a problem with someone who does? This is the same, you're producing more snakes and so far there haven't been any harmful effects and I doubt there will be.
The original motivation:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ball_Pythons4life

It is never explicitly stated what hos motivation and goal was, though it could be two things, he could be experimenting to find out ways to make money faster, or he could be experimenting for his own enjoyment. I think its safe to assume its the first one, but he is making a living out of his snakes, so I don't think he deserves so much hate for trying to find new ways to make money faster, as that is his goal in breeding, even though it might not be yours.

---

Close, but not quite. He originally started in the hobby because he enjoyed it, like most successful breeders. He then turned it into a business and was required to think about earning money for breeding to be successful in his job. The basis of keeping and breeding wild animals in captivity is based off of experimentation. I also don't think he deserves so much hate for applying results from a study on digestion on his own animals. He is making money faster and doing his job as well as he can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bns

Correct. It is about money or I could even somewhat agree about possibly his own enjoyment, but for sure, it wasn't about what could be best for the male bp's...

Your post leaves no doubt on your position...Its ok to experiment with the health of the snake -against known science- when its about personal enjoyment, money and breeding.

Erie explains why the long term affects don't matter:

The long term outcome doesn't matter at all...the males are disposable....bred for their genes and sold off like playing cards to someone else who wants those genes.

I'd rather discuss the science related to this but it isn't possible because the science only points one way when talking about longevity and health.

The folks making an effort to defend the subject at hand continue to show the truth behind the curtain.

---

Breeding, racks, and common husbandry isn't what's best for the snake. This method might not help the snake but it doesn't hurt them. Breeding in general is about personal enjoyment, money and breeding; that's why you need a balance between them and the animals safety. As I said above Wilbanks is trying to run a business. He has to make those kinds of decisions to sell snakes after their peak revenue passes. This isn't because he's a horrible keeper or breeder (which he's not) but because it's his job to run his business and that's what he has to do to make a living. This is from a study on digestion and the snake is meant to be able to do this in case of a food surplus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gio

I don't know about you but I'm not ever going to try to replicate the wild. Very few snakes survive past maturity and can reproduce and food isn't stable. I don't agree with feeding a 25 gram mouse daily instead of weekly but I do agree with feeding 5 gram mice 5 days a week.

Replicating the "wild" and following a pattern of evolution are two separate entities.

Feeding an animal the way it should be fed based on scientific studies of the said animal's physiology is not replicating the wild.

As I stated earlier, captivity is a different bag of tricks, but it DOES NOT change millions of years of evolution.

Elephants in captivity are not fed meat because they don't eat meat in the wild. They are fed a diet that would resemble their natural diet. A diet they have evolved to handle.

Feeding in that manner does not replicate the "wild" as your statement suggests.

Feeding a snake in a manner that replicates what it is biologically developed to handle is simply common sense.

Not only did JM's podcast link cover this, the link I provided does as well.

Boas and pythons may not be the same species as you pointed out.

Fair enough, but they do display convergent evolution.

Knowing that, one can surmise that not only are their hunting techniques similar, so are their reptilian digestive traits.

If ball pythons were designed to eat daily, they would have evolved to be constantly foraging predators. They are NOT.

They are ambush predators that depend on seasonality and the breeding and migration patterns of other animals.

---

Pythons were developed to be able to fast because of the food in the wild. It's unrealistic to think that a snake in the wild will be able to find and catch something to eat daily unless there is a major surplus in which they will grow faster. In captivity there's theoretically unlimited food for a snake. If they mature faster with more smaller meals in the wild then why shouldn't we replicate that in captivity? It doesn't help the snake, it benefits the keeper. However it doesn't hurt the snake and there's no good reason not to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gio

Taxing the system of an animal that eats infrequently with an unnatural, daily feeding regime will eventually have negative consequences. Big meal, small meal, normal meal, the system still has to work and rest. Not allowing that natural process to occur unhealthy.

In fairness, the consequences may be reversible if the snake is allowed to go back to a normal cycle. You may be able to get away with daily feeding for a short period of time though I'm guessing on that point.

What I see here is unnatural feeding to attain rapid size for earlier breeding plain and simple. Nothing benefits the male royal by doing this.

Over feeding and over breeding will take a toll on the health of almost any living thing.

---

How do you figure the digestive system has to rest. The method of this is that the digestive system doesn't have to keep starting and stopping saving energy. That extra saved energy goes to maturing the snake quicker causing it to be able to breed quicker. Breeding doesn't benefit the python, if anything harms it, but look how popular breeding has become. That's what the entire hobby of breeding/keeping is, the balance between what motivates the breeder, practicality, and the snakes health. None of them are placed as the only priority. Overfeeding is when you give the snake too much food. The "Wilbanks Method" is when you give the snake more smaller meals to save energy from digestion. If you think that it takes more energy then explain how the snake matures faster. You have the same amount of food going in (50g mouse = 5x 10g mouse) so where does the extra energy come from to mature the male faster? Saving energy from digestion.

[emoji2357]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Erie_herps,

There is no way this will come out correctly but I mean this in the best way possible...

You are not ready to discuss the things you have formed such strong opinions about (and I'm not talking about morals and ethics).... Research and observe to gain a better understanding on husbandry, digestion and longevity -if you can look outside the business model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erie_herps

The original Morphmarket post said that this was from a study on digestion. So no I don't think that their digestion system would do this if it were harmful to the snake. I may be wrong but until I see concrete evidence that the snake is suffering problems then I assume this method safe.


Yes the decorative enclosures are usually better for the viewer and not the snake. However keepers that keep their snakes in the larger enclosures say that their snake nearly never refuses food. A large enclosure is much better than racks because the snake is under very little stress. I personally keep most of my reptiles in racks but I'm not claiming that I prioritize the animals health over everything else.


I myself breed geckos and keep most of them in a rack system. However nobody that breeds reptiles places their animals health over everything else or they wouldn't breed them. Each breeder has something that motivates them and keeping & breeding reptiles is about the balance between them. I think breeders should be able to experiment with care types to achieve certain things. If you could get a snake to lay more eggs with no negative effects then would you try it? Even if you didn't would you have a problem with someone who does? This is the same, you're producing more snakes and so far there haven't been any harmful effects and I doubt there will be.
The original motivation:

Close, but not quite. He originally started in the hobby because he enjoyed it, like most successful breeders. He then turned it into a business and was required to think about earning money for breeding to be successful in his job. The basis of keeping and breeding wild animals in captivity is based off of experimentation. I also don't think he deserves so much hate for applying results from a study on digestion on his own animals. He is making money faster and doing his job as well as he can.


Breeding, racks, and common husbandry isn't what's best for the snake. This method might not help the snake but it doesn't hurt them. Breeding in general is about personal enjoyment, money and breeding; that's why you need a balance between them and the animals safety. As I said above Wilbanks is trying to run a business. He has to make those kinds of decisions to sell snakes after their peak revenue passes. This isn't because he's a horrible keeper or breeder (which he's not) but because it's his job to run his business and that's what he has to do to make a living. This is from a study on digestion and the snake is meant to be able to do this in case of a food surplus.


Pythons were developed to be able to fast because of the food in the wild. It's unrealistic to think that a snake in the wild will be able to find and catch something to eat daily unless there is a major surplus in which they will grow faster. In captivity there's theoretically unlimited food for a snake. If they mature faster with more smaller meals in the wild then why shouldn't we replicate that in captivity? It doesn't help the snake, it benefits the keeper. However it doesn't hurt the snake and there's no good reason not to.


How do you figure the digestive system has to rest. The method of this is that the digestive system doesn't have to keep starting and stopping saving energy. That extra saved energy goes to maturing the snake quicker causing it to be able to breed quicker. Breeding doesn't benefit the python, if anything harms it, but look how popular breeding has become. That's what the entire hobby of breeding/keeping is, the balance between what motivates the breeder, practicality, and the snakes health. None of them are placed as the only priority. Overfeeding is when you give the snake too much food. The "Wilbanks Method" is when you give the snake more smaller meals to save energy from digestion. If you think that it takes more energy then explain how the snake matures faster. You have the same amount of food going in (50g mouse = 5x 10g mouse) so where does the extra energy come from to mature the male faster? Saving energy from digestion.

---

Your entire argument goes against the biology of the animals you speak of.

It is also obvious that it is based solely on making an animal mature faster so it can be bred for profit and re-bred again.

None of this benefits the animal as you stated. It is puppy mill mentality when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it. Doing it because breeding has become "popular" isn't a good enough reason IMO.

You are incorrect about the digestive system as well. I suggest listening to the links provided and doing a little more science based reading. Pythons DO NOT eat daily, nor should they. Digesting constantly doesn't save energy. Digesting takes energy to be accomplished. As I stated, you should read through the links and field studies. Just because the animal grows faster doesn't mean that growth is healthy growth.

There are also genetic traits that determine whether or not one animal will grow faster than another. Not all pythons are the same size as adults, and not all mature at the same rate. Feeding isn't always the factor. Size does not always equate to maturity.



There are physiologic processes that take place within the snake when digesting. Organs enlarge, acids are produced, there is an effect on the heart. Those processes should never be in a continual state of motion. Hence the adaptations reptiles have made to seasonal changes and migrations.

If you think the daily feeding regime is a wonderful idea, salute.

Millions and millions of years of evolution say otherwise.

Feeding an animal in a manner that is based on science and the said animal's pattern in the wild is healthier and proven to produce long lived snakes.

This whole argument is driven by profit and not the health of the animal.

I listened to the MPR episode on digestion as well when it came out (really interesting, I recommend it) and I remember two points from it that I haven’t seen mentioned yet and might be helpful. First is that a snake’s digestion can be very different in the different life stages, and the process described in the podcast was mainly applicable to adult pythons. It wasn’t really clear just how similar the intensity of that process would be to a hatchling python’s. Second I think Dr. Loughman mentioned an instance where a certain population of carpet python does in fact spend part of the year with their digestive system constantly running because of the abundance of food during that time, but they are fine since their system gets a break once that surge of food is over.
I don’t think you could extrapolate those things to justify *daily* feedings though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk