Mice vs. Rats

[Marcia]

Hi. My Ball Python, Jake, is about three months old, 18 inches long and not quite and inch thick in the widest part of his body. He's been eating mice, alive or freshly killed, just fine, but I keep reading that rats are better. The pet store says mice are better, but I'm getting really confused. The store where I got Jake doesn't sell small rats, so I'm going to have to find some. And my hubby is really opposed to storing dead rats in the freezer, so I need to buy fresh ones, which, if I can find them, is no big deal. Someone please give me the bottom line about which is better, mice or rats. I keep thinking as Jake gets bigger, there won't be mice big enough to feed him just one and then I have to get into the multiple mice thing. HELP! Thanks.

[BallKingdom]

Rats, healthier for them. Bottom line.

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner.

[IMO]

Check out this study and decide for yourself.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/zoo/Who...nal02May29.pdf

This study offers some interesting statistics about the notion that rates are better than mice as a food source. I've read many posts saying rats are more "nutritious or healthier" than mice. From what I've read in this study, and speaking very generally, I've gathered several contributing factors to whether rats are really better than mice as a food source.

1) The food that the rat or mouse was raised on will contribute to its overall nourishment for the snake.
2) The age of the rat or mouse at the time of consumption. As the rat or mouse ages from one stage to another there are greater or lesser degrees of certain nutrients.
3) Rats and mice metabolize some nutrients differently-Regarding vitamin E, "Clear species differences in vitamin E metabolism/utilization have been shown between laboratory mice and rats raised on the same diets,7,15 suggesting that species that have not been studied may have different requirements."

The tables provided at the end of the study at times indicates wide variation and at other times very small differences in nutrition, again depending on the age of the rat or mouse. It would seem to me that from this limited study, it would be hard to support the argument, across the board, that rats are nutritionally better than mice. Having said that though when it comes to convenience, cost, and keeping the python feed, it only makes sense to feed larger items, i.e., rats if possible. In My Opinion, they are both probably offer equal nutritional. We as purchasers of live or frozen rats or mice usually have no idea what food they were raised on, how they were euthanized, etc., and therefore have no idea what's under that fur coat. I think you have to look at what your buying and judge as best you can on appearance and behavior of the rat or mouse. (In the case of frozen, behavior is usually consistent, LOL). Initially, I don't think it matters which you serve up. When the snake gets larger, I would go for rats for the reasons mentioned above.

[Jeanne]

OK , time for my .02 :


I agree with IMO about it not really mattering which you serve up, and I read the study he posted. I raise my own mice right now, and I know they are highly nutricious for my snakes cause I feed them well. One is just not going to have more calcuim, etc that the other really. You have to think in relation to the animals body size. Ofcourse rats may have more, they are bigger! But as far as anything else.. as a buyer you dont know what the prey item was raised on or has been fed. So I took care of that and raise my own. My feeders get fed all kinds of grains, fruits, veggies, meats...etc. So I know they are healthy themsleves. Something to think about I suppose. There has always been this huge debate over what is better to feed. So with this theory that rats are better, what if you can only get mice cause your snake is so little, think about king snakes, and corns, I have never seen those eat anything but mice. And I do not believe it makes them a less healthy snake for it. Bottom line, feed prey that is proper in size for your snake. Whether it be a mouse or 2 or 3, or a rat or 2 or 3. I am sure you get the idea. But I do think this feeding debate is rediculous and confusing to alot of new herp keepers cause there are so many different opinions out there. Just read the study that IMO left and make your own judgement call. It is good to get opinions of other herp keepers, but they vary so much on stuff like feeding issues that it gets confusing and irritating. On other subjects, others opinions are wonderful and helpful and not confusing or irritating, so keep asking, thats why we are all here, but just remember, there are times when you have to look at actual scientific studies and then make a judgment call, or several opinions and make your own judgement call. There is not one right way of doing things. And every case/scenario is different.

[Wizill]

^well said.

[Tigergenesis]

I know this is an old thread that I'm reviving from the dead, but I had bookmarked it sometime ago until I could ask my vet his opinion about it. Well I took my new Kingsnake for an initial checkup and asked him. He said there is no current proof to support the theory that rats are in any way better than mice - whether looking at fat, protein or calcium there just isn't much difference. He even referred me to the Bronx Zoo study mentioned in IMO's post.

Bottom line, feed prey that is proper in size for your snake.

Exactly what my vet said! He said people get too caught up in the rats are better thinking. There's just no proof and the most important thing is proper prey size and husbandry.


He also told me that it is much better to feed say 2 smaller prey in a feeding versus 1 larger prey item.

Again, just thought I'd add this in as this was one of those unsupported theories I kept hearing people throw around when I first got my BP. It just stressed me out - especially since people just kept saying it but couldn't back it up. Now at least there's some research to look at.

[Marla]

Thanks for topping this. This study was one of the most useful things I ever read with regard to bp feeding and I'm glad you had it bookmarked and followed up.

[Smulkin]

Yep - just my added .02 on where a bit of confusion may have arose:

When making the choice between say a jumbo mouse and a very young rat (both items appx the same size) the calcium argument IS valid since an adult of ANY endoskeletal species WILL have more signifcant calcium levels than a similarly sized juvenile. I.E. bitty jr rat vs bigass adult mouse - mouse will have more calcium.

I agree that bottom line appropriate size is key factor.

To supplement just give em flintstones chewables.

(PLEASE don't take that last line seriously - snakes do not chew and certainly don't give them human vitamins)