Grow Faster, Breed Sooner? (NOT POWER FEEDING)

[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? 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.

[bns]

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.

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).

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.

[Bogertophis]

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.

[Erie_herps]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Put the animal's wellbeing first.

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

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.

[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.

[bns]

...

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.

:... 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.

[bns]

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?

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?

[Ball_Pythons4life]

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.

[JacksReptiles]

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.

[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