Breeding Co-Doms

[frankykeno]

Just browsing around through some sites today and something makes me wonder.

Pastels are a Co-Dom trait. Therefore if I someday breed our male Pastel to a normal female there is a possibility of 2 pastels and 2 normals (based on the punnet square). Of course I realize nothing is ever a given with genetics.

Now those normals are "just" normals, correct? Nothing different genetically then any normal, right? So why do I see ads for "pastel siblings"? What would it matter if they are siblings to a pastel as they don't themselves express that gene or have the ability to carry that gene to their potential offspring? Why would someone advertise them that way?

Also is my understanding correct in saying that a Pastel being a co-dom is basically a visual het of the Super Pastel? So the difference between simple recessive and co-dominant is just in that the offspring can be visually sorted? Or have I way oversimplified this?


~~Joanna~~

[rabernet]

Also is my understanding correct in saying that a Pastel being a co-dom is basically a visual het of the Super Pastel? So the difference between simple recessive and co-dominant is just in that the offspring can be visually sorted? Or have I way oversimplified this?


~~Joanna~~

Way oversimplified? Man, you just confoozled me! LOL But then, that's fairly easy to do!

[tigerlily]

Ok here is my warning....I think I've got his right but don't quote me on it. Normal siblings of pastels are just that normals. They carry no pastel gene, and they're being marketed like that to probably up the price or just make them sound more appealing.

Co-dom hets will be the visually identifiable, and recessive hets are not. Recessive traits must be homozygous before they're visual. Co-dom homozygous will be the super. Ouch, that was way too much thinking this early in the morning. I hope that helped.

[frankykeno]

LOL Robin, there are days when I really wish I'd paid a whole heck of a lot more attention in senior biology. Too bad I was way more interested in the "biology" of that really cute football player in the next row over

I've just finished looking up information on genotype and phenotype and I think I've got that bit figured out a little. Are these correct tho basic definitions????

Phenotype is what you see...the actual physical characterists.

Genotype is what you can't see....the actual genes that are carried and can therefore be passed along to potential offspring.

So therefore Finn the pastel would have matching phenotype and genotype. He is a pastel and looks like one and can pass that pastel genetics to his potential offspring. Because Pastel is co-dominant it can't be a "hidden" trait, it has to be visually expressed.

Therefore my whole question about "pastel sibs" came up.

Lord I think I need an aspirin. This stuff is fascinating but makes my brain ache LOL and I may be mis-understanding it all.


~~Jo~~

[frankykeno]

That's what I was thinking Christie if it was just some sort of marketing thing to make them sound more appealing when in fact they are simply nice normal ball pythons. Nothing wrong in that of course, I adore our two normals but I just have this darned enquiring mind LOL


~~Jo~~

[tigerlily]

It looks like you got it all right. Now go get that aspirin!

[xdeus]

That sounds about right. There is one breeder that is selling Pinstripe siblings for $250 and $1,000 for 1.1. That seems a bit misleading because Pinstripes are Co-doms at most and many people think they are Dominant, so any sibs would be normals. I'm still not sure why many people think recessive traits will hold their value better than co-doms, though. As you stated earlier, a co-dom is just a visual recessive. Unless I'm missing something about simple recessives?

[frankykeno]

Well I personally (being the total newb I am) think recessive traits are just as vaulable as anything. I mean, you can buy a pair of 100% hets for a desired trait for a still fairly reasonable price compared to the actual morph. I know that's the only way Mike and I could ever afford to get into something like Albino or Pied, etc.

I hope lots of good breeders still continue to offer quality hets for folks like us that dream the dream. Not that I'd buy a het from anyone other than a breeder I trusted fully to know his/her genetics. I think that's an area a scam artist could just have a field day in.


~~Jo~~

[Adam_Wysocki]

Normal looking pastel siblings are marketed as pastel siblings for two different reasons that may or may not be related depending on the breeder ...

1. because the breeder basically hand selected his/her nicest looking female normals to breed his/her pastels to and produced exceptional looking pastels and nicer than your average looking normal sibs.

2. the breeder is a hoping to squeeze a few extra bucks out of someone that doesn't know better.

Would I advertise normal pastel sibs as pastel sibs? Certainly, if for nothing else than to give the buyer a background on the snakes lineage. Would I charge a little more for them? Maybe, if they were exceptional. Would I charge 3, 4, or 5 times more for them? No way!!!

As far as recessives being a better investment? He!! Yes!! ..... When buyers get into co doms, they typically spend the big money and purchase a single male that they can raise up and breed in a year and produce their own females (instead of buying the girls). The vast majority of co-dom buyers only buy the male, so if you are buying a co-dom to raise up and breed, it's a lot more work to sell the higher priced females than it is the males.

With recessives, to produce the visual morph it takes two ... male and a female ... that's what most people buy ... pairs ..... For those investors to produce visual offspring from that pair takes 3 years, and sometimes 4.

So when you invest in a snake to raise and produce offspring, the people you are selling to will one day also be producing the same snakes and selling them in the market .... you are in essence selling to your future competitors .... Competition = higher supply = lower prices (these are the rules of the game) ... If you sell your future competitors co-doms, they will potentially be competing with you in 1 years time, hence potentially lowering the market value of the morph that you sold them in 12-18 months .... If you sell your future competitors recessive hets, they will potentially be competing with you in 3 - 4 years time .... which gives a longer window with less competition producing those recessive hets and visuals, hence keeping the price up.

It gets more interesting with crosses ... co-dom crosses like bumble bees and pewters have 1 in 4 odds of hitting per egg in the first breeding .... with recessives, you first have to produce the double hets, raise them up, and then hit on 1 in 16 odds per egg.

In terms of short return, co-doms can certainly make you some money ... but even after everyone has co-doms, there will still be tons of people working on their double and triple recessive crosses. If you're in it for the long haul, recessives are where it's at!!!

(I'm not even gonna proof read this, so if it sounds insane ... oh well ... LOL)

-adam

[xdeus]

Thanks for the explanation, that actually made a lot of sense. But do you think the prices for co-doms or simple recessive will affect the prices of the homo animals from either genotypes? Will a Piebald hold its value longer than a Super Pastel? (as an example, I know a lot depends on the demand for the particular morph)