So ... How far do we go?

I've been thinking of posting something like this for awhile, but this thread really got me thinking ...

How far do we go as far as the artificial manipulation of ball pythons in a captive breeding situation?

... By that I mean:

Morphs are now commonly accepted and embraced, but I believe there was a time when even they were viewed as "unnatural." Many of those who kept reptiles did so for the joy of seeing something very natural, very unchanged by man, in a captive setting, and of reproducing that animal in a manner as close to nature as possible. Deliberate propagation of a mutation that would be unlikely to survive in the wild would be viewed by such keepers as an anathema to their goals. ... To my knowledge, many raptor breeders still feel this way.

Now, clearly the modern tide of reptile keeping is towards "morphs, morphs, morphs," and as much artificial selection for the BEST quality of said morphs as possible. We are trending more towards what domestic animal breeders do, with setting an end-goal with self imposed standards and breeding towards that. There is no external artificial manipulation on a molecular level, but we certainly do artificially select. It's survival of the prettiest.

... My question is, how artificial do we get with all of this? What level of manipulation do we as reptile keepers tolerate, and at what point do we say, "Nope, this is just too weird?" (Or "wrong," if that's your feeling?)

We have no problem manipulating the environment of the animals to get them to cycle; that's just mimicking their natural habitat. ... What about direct hormonal manipulations? Would you be willing to use hormone injections to cycle your females? ... It's par for the course in cattle. (I think it might be commonplace in frog breeding, too ..?)

If you're okay with that, what about artificial insemination? (Or maybe you're okay with AI, but not hormone cycling.) It's probably never going to happen, but if you could go onto NERD's website and buy a straw of banana Enchi soul sucker semen ... Would you? What about just for your own collection, to ensure adequate mating? (Note, live cover is actually usually more effective than AI :P )

... Then what about on a molecular level? Would you do a DNA test to see if your 50% possible het female actually carried the gene? Or is that "cheating?"

Would you buy a GFP (green flourescent protein), glow in the dark ball python? (... I finally put a blacklight on my GFP axolotl's tank -- I gotta say, it IS pretty cool!)

Or, do you think we've reached the pinnacle of our artificial manipulation, and any more is overkill?

Just my opinion but,.. keep it simple and leave AIs, Injections and anything else that's too extra out,.. it's not worth it. Quit trying to make Superman piss Kriptonite.

i would buy/breed a glow in the dark ball python spider monkey.
PS I'll take that straw also.

AI is only breeding what already exists, just not having to move the male about to various females. I see nothing wrong with it. It would be a safer way to do a breeding loan, since you would not have to ship out the male or female, nor risk breaking a good quarentine just to get a breeder in for breeding season. It would also eliminate people stealing the shipped animal by either claiming it was a permenent loan, "misunderstanding" who was to be bred, etc.

I don't see breeding morph with morph as any more "unnatural" than breeding normal to normal. Saying that breeding originally was 'as if in the wild' is completely false, as the owners are still choosing which of their normals they purchase and put together. That is every bit as unnatural, since the snakes did not roam about in the open, available to be preyed upon or killed through natural selection, then choosing their mates and taking their chances with parasites etc.

DNA testing to see if your het is actually a het is not changing anything in the animal. What could possibly be wrong with that? It's just like the most trustworthy paperwork in the world. Instead of wondering if the animal carries albino, you can DNA test to see for certain. There are DNA tests for various dog breeds, why not be able to test to see if a snake is a particular "breed" or het?

What if a glow-in-the-dark python was discovered in the wild? Would that be "unnatural" even though it occured in the wild? All the current morphs occured in the wild, but they are somehow "unnatural" but something else is not, simply because it occured in captive breeding? Or are you referring to actual genetic manipulation, i.e. adding special non-BP genes to a BP in order to get a glow-in-the-dark python?

Since there will always be normal non-morph BPs available, I don't know why anyone who doesn't like morphs would object. Someone who believes ONLY normal BPs are okay to own shouldn't even object to glowy BPs, since they can simply choose not to own one, or to breed any. They can keep their own normals and not buy glowy, or not buy albinos. What does it truly hurt a person who wants only normals that morphs or genetically altered animals exist for other people?

I personally don't like basset hounds. But I don't object to them existing, to people breeding them, or even to people who say they think basset hounds are the best dogs EVER. I simply don't own one. I don't see why people who dislike morphs or whatever exists in the future can't do the same thing.

I believe it would cost 2x more to keep sperm then BP's and 2x more to buy it and another 2x on AI your ball python if you've never done it(if it's even possible).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingPythons

I believe it would cost 2x more to keep sperm then BP's and 2x more to buy it and another 2x on AI your ball python if you've never done it(if it's even possible).

---

You just freeze it. Cheap. All you do is squirt it inside the female at about the right time. Getting the female to cycle might be more difficult but I'm sure not to hard.
Sly Fox said it good; "Let's go all the way"

You can't just throw collected semen in your freezer and expect it to be viable when you're ready for it. Unless you have your own liquid nitrogen set up for freezing and storing,.. good luck with that. Other than that,.. you would have to pay someone to collect, freeze, store and or implant it for you when the female is ready.

It's not cheap for most domestic animals,.. so I don't even want to know what the price would be for exotics.

As for just squirting it inside the female,.. I hope you know quite a bit about Anatomy before you go poking and squirting in the wrong place.

Human sperm from a sperm bank is only $300, storage for six months $200. Cheaper than a spinnerblast. No I'm not a geneticist or a doctor. I'm not "planning" on doing this, just commenting that if it was an option I would.

I think I'm cool on freezing sperm and sitting it right next to some steaks in my freezer lol just saying. Also, Im not trying to make love to my animals neither lol just saying.

And I just commented that for me it wouldn't be worth it and why.
But you didn't add the price of the sperm for what ever the morph maybe, shipping and how ever many AIs you need to get the job done.
Since snakes are usually paired together more than once. Not all AIs take on the first try some need to be redone how ever many times.

Not to mention if it doesn't take, you don't know if any was retained or not so,.. then what? Money wasted or try again,.. it just seems easier to have snakes you need on hand to make what you want.

The sperm would cost less than buying and maintaining a male. Sperm from a stud is invariably less than the cost of the stud, in any species.

Inserting the sperm is usually very easy, and with minimal training a "layman" can do so in several domestic species. It's not as if the hemipene of a male python insert to a unusual depth during mating.

Yes, it's pricier than using a male you have on hand, but it's less pricy than owning a special combo snake if it's a high-end morph combo. Also, some of the other species like rare boa localities could be better preserved.

All the "what about retained sperm" or "what if she doesn't take" are the same risks if you did a regular breeding loan too.

AI was once considered crazy for horses and such too. Who's to say that most pet species will not be created via AI in another 20 years? It's certainly less risky to ship frozen sperm than to ship a stud.

I thought the argument was whether it was "right" to use AI, not the technicalities of if it would be possible though.

Also, if you could use DNA testing to see whether a line of caramel carried the kinking issue, would it be considered okay to test for that? You could avoid breeding kinked babies if there was a test for the issue. Or would that be cheating too?

I see nothing wrong with AI or breeding mutations. Most mutations are genetic remnants lying dormat that may or may not have been beneficial for survival so there is nothing unnatural about them. I could see some ethical issues with say breeding morphs that dont thrive but other than that I'm good with it. Plus these snakes are captive pets and will not need to survive in the wild so it doesnt really matter. And hey, their pretty cool. Nobody would have their dogs or cats or many other pets without some selective breeding going on. Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

I've been thinking of posting something like this for awhile, but this thread really got me thinking ...

How far do we go as far as the artificial manipulation of ball pythons in a captive breeding situation?

... By that I mean:

Morphs are now commonly accepted and embraced, but I believe there was a time when even they were viewed as "unnatural." Many of those who kept reptiles did so for the joy of seeing something very natural, very unchanged by man, in a captive setting, and of reproducing that animal in a manner as close to nature as possible. Deliberate propagation of a mutation that would be unlikely to survive in the wild would be viewed by such keepers as an anathema to their goals. ... To my knowledge, many raptor breeders still feel this way.

Now, clearly the modern tide of reptile keeping is towards "morphs, morphs, morphs," and as much artificial selection for the BEST quality of said morphs as possible. We are trending more towards what domestic animal breeders do, with setting an end-goal with self imposed standards and breeding towards that. There is no external artificial manipulation on a molecular level, but we certainly do artificially select. It's survival of the prettiest.

... My question is, how artificial do we get with all of this? What level of manipulation do we as reptile keepers tolerate, and at what point do we say, "Nope, this is just too weird?" (Or "wrong," if that's your feeling?)

We have no problem manipulating the environment of the animals to get them to cycle; that's just mimicking their natural habitat. ... What about direct hormonal manipulations? Would you be willing to use hormone injections to cycle your females? ... It's par for the course in cattle. (I think it might be commonplace in frog breeding, too ..?)

If you're okay with that, what about artificial insemination? (Or maybe you're okay with AI, but not hormone cycling.) It's probably never going to happen, but if you could go onto NERD's website and buy a straw of banana Enchi soul sucker semen ... Would you? What about just for your own collection, to ensure adequate mating? (Note, live cover is actually usually more effective than AI :P )

... Then what about on a molecular level? Would you do a DNA test to see if your 50% possible het female actually carried the gene? Or is that "cheating?"

Would you buy a GFP (green flourescent protein), glow in the dark ball python? (... I finally put a blacklight on my GFP axolotl's tank -- I gotta say, it IS pretty cool!)

Or, do you think we've reached the pinnacle of our artificial manipulation, and any more is overkill?

---

I don't think there's anything wrong with the things you mention above. The one thing I worry about is BP's becoming weak from excessive line breeding and inbreeding. This happened with Angel Fish back in, I think it was the 1980's. I remember there being a big die off, wiping out many different Morphs.

From what I've seen of PB breeders, they seem very responsible in their breeding choices. I think the genetic pool we have for PB's is varied enough to make strong, healthy animals. We've only just begun though. As the chain of Morphs in a BP's genetic make up becomes longer, inbreeding will become more attractive as a quick way to pair up genes.

The rule of thumb I learned long ago is to outcross after two line breedings or after one inbreeding.

totally opposed to a.i. but all for dna testing for health related issues. we could have helped with the tail kinking and spider wobblin from the beginning if selective breeding was done. if you know you have a wobbler and it throws wobblers then dont breed the wobbler anymore. if ya have a line of tail kinkers then you need to break the cycle and breed it out of the line. but the unfortanate thing of money and high value took care of that. if this was dog breeding then every single snake breeder would be considered puppy mills. but this is a money driven market and the money is what keep the bigger breeders breeding so everyone down the ladder can breed as well. this is a hard debate cause there is valid points on both sides. i wish cavanaugh was on this thread so i could call it playing mad scientist lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake lab

totally opposed to a.i. but all for dna testing for health related issues. we could have helped with the tail kinking and spider wobblin from the beginning if selective breeding was done. if you know you have a wobbler and it throws wobblers then dont breed the wobbler anymore. if ya have a line of tail kinkers then you need to break the cycle and breed it out of the line. but the unfortanate thing of money and high value took care of that. if this was dog breeding then every single snake breeder would be considered puppy mills. but this is a money driven market and the money is what keep the bigger breeders breeding so everyone down the ladder can breed as well. this is a hard debate cause there is valid points on both sides. i wish cavanaugh was on this thread so i could call it playing mad scientist lol

---

Damn near took the works out of my mouth.

Thanks all for your posts!

I'm kind of surprised as I thought more people would be opposed to the things I mentioned. I also think it's interesting that AI became the main focus of debate; I figured people would have more to say on hormones and transgenic pets! :P

I honestly don't think that AI will ever be feasible for ball pythons -- I think I maybe read one paper in which they tried it in some sort of colubrid using electroejaculation under anesthesia, and I don't recall if it worked, and it just doesn't seem hugely reasonable to think of doing in our species. Remember, too, that some species have semen that just does not freeze, for whatever reason, and ball pythons might well fall into that category. Perhaps it would work, but as was already pointed out, the equipment necessary (liquid nitrogen tank, AI guns, etc.) plus expertise would likely put it out of the realm of possibility for the average hobbyist. The one place I could realistically see it being used would be for breeding loans between some of the biggest breeders with ultra-rare animals.

Personally, I think AI is about the only thing I mentioned that I would really be in any way opposed to. I don't have a problem with hormone cycling (as long as it doesn't hurt the female in any way, which it shouldn't) and I agree with everyone that has posted that it would be great to be able to test for negative mutations -- ie, to try and separate the spider from the wobble, if possible. And it would be rather absurd of me to be opposed to morphs with a small stable of them in my house -- I just mentioned that to illustrate how views have changed throughout the years! ;)

I have mixed feelings on using direct molecular genetic manipulation to create things for purely aesthetic purposes -- ie, GFP ball python, which would be amazingly cool but have no research value like GFP axolotls do. I couldn't put my finger specifically on what it is that bothers me about it, but it does just seem ... "Eh." Not a very good justification for disliking something, though.

The reason I'm not a fan of AI (at least, in the hypothetical and highly improbable situation that it was reasonably available and affordable to everyone) is more for the other repercussions to the market and the gene pool than the actual act itself. Why would you use an average old mojave as a stud when you could pay the same price and get a shot of super killer blast lesser Enchi banana semen? That super killer blast Enchi banana male is gonna have a LOT of babies, so he better be a good snake. One stallion, a horse named Impressive, was responsible for the widespread dissemination of the disease hyperkalemic periodic paralysis within the halter-class Quarterhorse population.

Obviously there's already a lot of that in the snake world -- I realize that all spiders are descended from one original sire -- but IMO using AI would amplify the situation. As it is, it takes many generations to disseminate all of those baby snakes into the general population of snake breeders, and each generation represents another outcross (at least with co-dom morphs). I think that if we had a handful of amazing studs to choose from, everyone would breed to those studs, and their genes would be disseminated even more rapidly than usual. If anything was hidden in those genes -- anything negative -- the use of AI, and subsequent rapid and widespread dissemination of aforementioned genes, would make it that much harder to breed out.

In addition, imagine what AI would do to the value of males. Right now, many single-gene males are very low in demand, as more genetically valuable males are becoming more widely available and affordable. However, some males are still in high demand -- I didn't see a boatload of clown males flooding the market this season (I was looking!), and those that are out there are still selling for ~$1000 easily. Imagine if for $500, though, I could just go out and buy a straw of super pastel lesser clown semen ... Good for me now, but bad for me when I want to try and sell my regular clown babies to everyone else who can also just go out and buy that same straw.

... To be sure, it'd be fun to have that option open ... But I don't know as it would be such a great thing in the long run. There's a running debate in the mail section of one of the horse magazines I get, and they keep referring to AI as the "genie that's been let out of the bottle," and debating back and forth on the pros and cons ... So even in a world where it's well-established, commonplace and definitely not going anywhere, there are still plenty of "cons" to be found with AI.

/ramble ramble ramble .......

IMO, the answer is your mileage may vary. Everybody draws his own line. I wouldn't mind seeing a green glow in the dark ball python, though it's not my bag.

I have no problem with the wild type only people and the every mutant you can squeeze in people. I am glad that morphs started being bred, though. Because without the morphs there would be little captive breeding or swap sales. Most reptiles would be wild caught and sold mail order by the importers/dealers, as in the 1970s and earlier.