Inbreeding?

What's your opinion on inbreeding. I've thoguht about breeding a Piebald female to a spinnerblast male and get a male spinnerblast het pied. Then I breed that male to my original pied female and get visual pieds.

Id say nothing wrong with it unless you start seeing negative traits.

Its fine to do as long as the snakes are healthy and you don't think they carry any heritable disability. Many often prove out recessive genetics that way.

Reptiles do not have the same issues that mammals have when inbreeding or line breeding. (Not counting the morphs that are prone to genetic defects)

Ball pythons in particular are a non migratory species. So they breed to whatever snakes are in the same area in the wild. Its safe to say that breeding with relatives is not uncommon. Its also how locality based animals are established.

Natural selection keeps the population strong and selects against weakness/negative traits. In captivity, the humans are the ones responsible for that selection.

So with that said, if you choose to inbreed or line breed, I personally wouldn't go overboard with it and only choose to do a few generations at the very most. Breeding healthy animals should be more important than genetic potential.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

That's actually good to know. Do you think inbreeding makes less helthier animals in ball pythons? Just wondering.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misha

That's actually good to know. Do you think inbreeding makes less healthier animals in ball pythons? Just wondering.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

---

Depends if there are genes present that cause the negative traits. Inbreeding can strengthen a genetic line also, assuming the negative traits are weeded out or not present in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Depends if there are genes present that cause the negative traits. Inbreeding can strengthen a genetic line also, assuming the negative traits are weeded out or not present in the first place.

---

What would be some of those negative traits be? Something like blindness I take it? The reason I ask is because I'm not aware of too many negative traits in ball pythons. Definitely want to learn more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misha

That's actually good to know. Do you think inbreeding makes less helthier animals in ball pythons? Just wondering.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

---

It can go either way depending on the animals used.

Lets say:
2 animals that have no negative genes or traits are bred together. Since they have no deleterious alleles, that means they can only produce healthy offspring that do not contain those bad genes.
And as Ohhwataloser said, it could strengthen the line.

In contrast, 2 animals that have deletrious alleles could produce offspring that possess more of those deleterious alleles.


People are always saying how mutt dogs are healthier than purebreds. False. Mutts are not always more healthy. (American Bully anyone?)
If those mix dogs inherited the poor traits of their parents, they could also be just as bad as other genetic train wrecks. For example, a mutt that has English Bulldog blood could possess the same breathing issues as their purebred counterparts.

Offspring health can go either way depending on the health and genetics of the breeding animals.
And the thing about inbreeding, you're generally mixing together a similar set of genes. So you have a greater chance of exposing a specific gene; good or bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misha

What would be some of those negative traits be? Something like blindness I take it? The reason I ask is because I'm not aware of too many negative traits in ball pythons. Definitely want to learn more.

---

Something that usually promotes defects, weakness, or less than quality of life.
Spinal kinks for example.

I appreciate the explanation. That definitely make sense.

I guess my question is, is there's a lot of these deformities in ball python genetics and which one of them are more popular or easiest to identify?

Someone should possibly make a sticky in the breeding forum on this subject.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misha

I appreciate the explanation. That definitely make sense.

I guess my question is, is there's a lot of these deformities in ball python genetics and which one of them are more popular or easiest to identify?

Someone should possibly make a sticky in the breeding forum on this subject.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

---

Most would be fairly obvious, deformed body parts or something like eyes or jaws missing. I have also heard about snakes that show symptoms like train wreak spiders, but are not spiders. Any of these could be contributed to non-genetic factors also tho, so don't let one negative animal or even one clutch make you panic. Incubation and environmental factor can also cause it. However, if you produce a few negative animals in the same line of animals, you might want to try some outcrossing and hope to remove the negative genes.

How do you explain to non-reptile people about line breeding? There are already so many stigmas I'd hate to have people think badly of the industry.

It's done all the time in dogs (mostly line breeding, less inbreeding). As stated... it can strengthen a line... although I had my fair share of conversations with people there as well. Animals are far different than humans where breeding is involved.
You have to limit it and know where and where not to use it

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by futurebpowner

How do you explain to non-reptile people about line breeding? There are already so many stigmas I'd hate to have people think badly of the industry.

---

It's not a reptile thing, its a genetics thing. Problem with humans is they just tend to have a lot of negative genes in general, hook up with family and one of those recessive traits is bound to show up. A long time ago we just noticed you keep it in the family and bad things happen, thus the stigma was born. It appears reptiles do not have as many negative genes normally. Then again, I haven't got new rat blood in quite a while and I have very little problems with them, even after quite a few generations. It's just all about the genes in the animals, reptile, rodent, or human, doesn't matter.

I work at a vet and it's just very looked down on buying from breeders, but people dint see the differnce between mammal breeding and reptile breeding

generally people say inbreeding BPs for one or two generations is totally fine, just dont overdo it.

also there is a way to sort of push the reset button on inbreeding. if the ancestry on the fathers side is completely different from the ancestry on the mothers side, the BP will be free of inbreeding, even if the parents INDIVIDUALLY are inbred.

generally breeders avoid it when there is no real reason to do it, but when it brings a real advantage they go fot it.

also it scales dramatically with the size of the collection. with 20 snakes the amount of possible pairings is rather limited, and the amount of useful pairings is even smaller. with 300 males and 600 females, the amount of possible pairings and useful pairings is so incredibly large that avoiding unnecessary inbreeding is really really easy. large breeders can even start a double recessive project and produce double recessives without inbreeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by futurebpowner

I work at a vet and it's just very looked down on buying from breeders, but people dint see the difference between mammal breeding and reptile breeding

---

I don't see a difference either, but I have a feeling I would disagree with them on many points.

When I bought my husky, I got her from a 50 year line of no significant problems, like hip dysplasia. 50 years this breeders family has been working on making the healthiest husky they could. That is to be looked down upon? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

I don't see a difference either, but I have a feeling I would disagree with them on many points.

When I bought my husky, I got her from a 50 year line of no significant problems, like hip dysplasia. 50 years this breeders family has been working on making the healthiest husky they could. That is to be looked down upon? :rolleyes:

---

I absolutely agree with you.

I'm sure there's some shady breeders out there but they don't stay in business long. Reputable breeders are in business because they produce quality animals.

When I start looking to buy my Maine Coon, one of the biggest house cats I can own in California, I'll be looking for a breeder who produces healthy animals. I rather pay a little bit more but know that I'm getting a healthy pet.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

It's looked down on because we see a lot of health problems where i work, but they also get them from some not so good breeders or a lot of puppies come from petland. And I'm also a big believer in adoption. But I know people who have gotten great dogs form breeders. I also look at reptile breeding differently because you get so much better BP's from good, reputable breeders and it seems that most of the breeders are more reliable and care about their snakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by futurebpowner

I work at a vet and it's just very looked down on buying from breeders, but people dint see the differnce between mammal breeding and reptile breeding

---

People look down on buying from breeders, because "shelter dogs". A line bred pure breed is one of the best, healthiest dogs you can ever find.

But just like reptiles, you have to dig to find the breeders that actually care.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

in dogs there seems to be a very real recent crisis of inbreeding.

this documentary stirred up A LOT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMyqH_Q_iPY

a follow-up documentary has been done 3 years later, about changes that happened after the first documentary. they changed some breed standards, no longer accept the worst kind of inbreeding, and so on.

so, no, not everything is fine in the world of dog breeding. some breeders are really reckless.

Quote:

---

People look down on buying from breeders, because "shelter dogs". A line bred pure breed is one of the best, healthiest dogs you can ever find.

---

absolutely not true, there are breeds where 80% or more of all the dogs will develop serious health problems. life expectency is taking a serious hit in some breeds. the most healthy dogs are those that are bred as working dogs, like assist dogs for handicapped people and dogs for law enforcement, followed by mutts. pedigree show dogs are the least healthy.

fortunately its different in reptile breeding.

Not all dogs are created equally.

One of the biggest issues with dogs is that most *known* breeders are breeding for conformation and not functionality, which goes hand in hand with health. Purebred does not mean well bred.
Most show line breeders breed for family pets as well so most of the dogs bred by these people can be found in your average home.

A working line German Shepherd looks nothing like a deformed show line German Shepherd.

My dobermans are working dogs and we are in a working dog Schutzhund club. Almost all of the dogs in the club are German Shepherds and almost all of their owner/handlers breed.
However, they only breed the best performing dogs that can endure trials and win working titles. These people are more concerned with how well a dog can preform and not on how it looks. The breedings are highly researched well in advanced to see which pairings can yield the best performing pups. These are perfect examples of selective breeding for the betterment of the breed.
Like in natural selection, only the strong and most fit get to pass on their genes to the next generation.
So, these dogs are still purebred as well as *well bred*.

These dogs are bred for specific working traits: ability to physically work in the field and through obstacles, high drive, high nerve, and heart. Qualities many pet/show dogs do not posses.
And since working dog breeders only breed more working dogs, most people who only want pets do not go to these breeders for their pups. Nor are many of these dogs suited for a easy going family home. Their drives are just too high.

So, folks that are just looking for a family pet go to a 'reputable show breeder' instead and just continue promoting the breeding of 'crappy' dogs. I know the AKC specifically is destroying a lot of breeds and their original function/purpose. Many AKC dogs look very different than their original counterparts 100 years ago. And those dogs 100 years ago were bred for a specific purpose or work. For function.

I have an 'original style' purebred miniature pinscher. She's 20 lbs and a tall lean machine. She's several times larger than an AKC min pin(seen below). However, she is what the breed looked like originally. Her drives are high and she wants to hunt. The breed was originally designed for eradicating rodents & pests and she's very good at it.
Today, the average min pins are 8lb fat lap dogs.

https://scontent-a-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/...710_7720_n.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satomi325

Not all dogs are created equally.

One of the biggest issues with dogs is that most *known* breeders are breeding for conformation and not functionality, which goes hand in hand with health. Purebred does not mean well bred.
Most show line breeders breed for family pets as well so most of the dogs bred by these people can be found in your average home.

A working line German Shepherd looks nothing like a deformed show line German Shepherd.

My dobermans are working dogs and we are in a working dog Schutzhund club. Almost all of the dogs in the club are German Shepherds and almost all of their owner/handlers breed.
However, they only breed the best performing dogs that can endure trials and win working titles. These people are more concerned with how well a dog can preform and not on how it looks. The breedings are highly researched well in advanced to see which pairings can yield the best performing pups. These are perfect examples of selective breeding for the betterment of the breed.
Like in natural selection, only the strong and most fit get to pass on their genes to the next generation.
So, these dogs are still purebred as well as *well bred*.

These dogs are bred for specific working traits: ability to physically work in the field and through obstacles, high drive, high nerve, and heart. Qualities many pet/show dogs do not posses.
And since working dog breeders only breed more working dogs, most people who only want pets do not go to these breeders for their pups. Nor are many of these dogs suited for a easy going family home. Their drives are just too high.

So, folks that are just looking for a family pet go to a 'reputable show breeder' instead and just continue promoting the breeding of 'crappy' dogs. I know the AKC specifically is destroying a lot of breeds and their original function/purpose. Many AKC dogs look very different than their original counterparts 100 years ago. And those dogs 100 years ago were bred for a specific purpose or work. For function.

I have an 'original style' purebred miniature pinscher. She's 20 lbs and a tall lean machine. She's several times larger than an AKC min pin(seen below). However, she is what the breed looked like originally. Her drives are high and she wants to hunt. The breed was originally designed for eradicating rodents & pests and she's very good at it.
Today, the average min pins are 8lb fat lap dogs.

https://scontent-a-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/...710_7720_n.jpg

---

This is exactly what we talk about and what my vets tries to explain to people who want a "purebred" dog. Also everyone expects their purebred dog to follow breed standards in temperment and then get upset when they've got a hyper Great Dane or a "mean" Labrador. We also see a lot of problems in training because for some reason people just expect their pure dogs to come out perfect and well trained because their meant to fit breed standards. Now these aren't always the most intelligent people, but that's why it's so important to do all your research before buying any animal.

The breed standard in the US now is very different than the original breed standard.

I'm a fan of well bred purebreds. Nothing is wrong with mutts, but I just prefer purebreds. However, I do understand the major problems going on with pedigree show purebreds.

We need to be more like some European countries; You can't breed a dog without a working title.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2