Grow Faster, Breed Sooner? (NOT POWER FEEDING)

[bns]

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.

Correct. It is about money or I could even somewhat agree about possibly his own enjoyment, but for sure, it wasn't about what could be best for the male bp's...

Your post leaves no doubt on your position...Its ok to experiment with the health of the snake -against known science- when its about personal enjoyment, money and breeding.

Erie explains why the long term affects don't matter:

...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. ...

The long term outcome doesn't matter at all...the males are disposable....bred for their genes and sold off like playing cards to someone else who wants those genes.

I'd rather discuss the science related to this but it isn't possible because the science only points one way when talking about longevity and health.

The folks making an effort to defend the subject at hand continue to show the truth behind the curtain.

[Ball_Pythons4life]

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

Ok so no, I did not listen to your podcast (really don't have the time) but was this podcast talking about a regular sized meal? Was it talking about royals, or some snake that's 2/3 times the size? If it was talking about a regular sized meal when it used the cheeseburger analogy, wouldn't it be very different if they were talking about small meals, like its equivalent to eating the bun when you jog? the amount of food they are eating is not different, so its not power feeding (feeding large meals daily by force feeding or enticing them)

[Hugsplox]

I took a little time to type this up, because I would consider myself one of the the more vocal people on this thread, and I wanted to make sure that it was clear how and why I'm at this point with this topic.

I listened to to the podcast that jmcrook shared, I also took a deep dive into some of the names that Gio posted earlier in the thread, and I have to say my opinion on this has changed since my earlier posts, and it changed because I was wrong. The initial question I had was does this method effect the longevity and health of the snakes, and I defended the ethics of it by arguing that we didn't know, but as it turns out, we do know, or at least we have enough data to make an educated judgment.

The issue being debated now isn't "what effect does this have on the snake" but "does the breeder care and should I care." As bns pointed out, profit taints data. I said before that I understand why Wilbanks tried this, because he's trying to run a business, and IF it doesn't effect the snakes than I don't see an issue. Take a look at the information that some of our peers have shared and I think you'll find, as I did, that that IF goes away really quickly. You can't keep arguing the science if you're not going to review the science being provided for you.

I think this entire thread which was started with, what I would consider, a lot of scientific questions up for discussion has devolved into an ethical debate. End of the day, to each their own, just remember your money is the loudest voice when it comes to addressing ethical issues with breeders. If you don't agree with a method, a morph, a species, don't support it. I'm not telling anyone not to buy from Wilbanks, I did, and I've spoken many times about how easy he was to deal with. That being said, would I buy from him again? That's an ethical question you have to ask yourself.

[Bogertophis]

... 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

So that's bad then? How about swimming laps with a cheeseburger, is that okay? 'Cause that's really my favorite thing... (kidding!)

I agree with Hugsplox (post #63 above)- was "on the fence" initially, but I'll take "science", thank you very much.

[Gio]

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.

Replicating the "wild" and following a pattern of evolution are two separate entities.

Feeding an animal the way it should be fed based on scientific studies of the said animal's physiology is not replicating the wild.

As I stated earlier, captivity is a different bag of tricks, but it DOES NOT change millions of years of evolution.

Elephants in captivity are not fed meat because they don't eat meat in the wild. They are fed a diet that would resemble their natural diet. A diet they have evolved to handle.

Feeding in that manner does not replicate the "wild" as your statement suggests.

Feeding a snake in a manner that replicates what it is biologically developed to handle is simply common sense.

Not only did JM's podcast link cover this, the link I provided does as well.

Boas and pythons may not be the same species as you pointed out.

Fair enough, but they do display convergent evolution.

Knowing that, one can surmise that not only are their hunting techniques similar, so are their reptilian digestive traits.

If ball pythons were designed to eat daily, they would have evolved to be constantly foraging predators. They are NOT.

They are ambush predators that depend on seasonality and the breeding and migration patterns of other animals.

[Gio]

If anybody cares to wade through this you will find some very interesting information.

https://jeb.biologists.org/content/210/2/340

It is not directly related to the discussion here but it covers the various stages of digestion and energy level usage that infrequently fed, sit and wait, ambush tactic snakes experience.

"That is totally irrelevant. We're on a discussion about Royal (Ball) Pythons, not boas. The concepts do not apply throughout the species."

As I mentioned above, convergent evolution is at play. Completely different species have evolved to develop similar characteristics, traits and physiology.

Sit and wait, ambush predators have a system built for long periods of fasting. That includes boas and yes,,, pythons. Forging colubrids are noted to have differences in the way they process their prey.

Taxing the system of an animal that eats infrequently with an unnatural, daily feeding regime will eventually have negative consequences. Big meal, small meal, normal meal, the system still has to work and rest. Not allowing that natural process to occur unhealthy.

In fairness, the consequences may be reversible if the snake is allowed to go back to a normal cycle. You may be able to get away with daily feeding for a short period of time though I'm guessing on that point.

What I see here is unnatural feeding to attain rapid size for earlier breeding plain and simple. Nothing benefits the male royal by doing this.


Over feeding and over breeding will take a toll on the health of almost any living thing.

[Erie_herps]

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.

The original Morphmarket post said that this was from a study on digestion. So no I don't think that their digestion system would do this if it were harmful to the snake. I may be wrong but until I see concrete evidence that the snake is suffering problems then I assume this method safe.

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.

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.

Yes the decorative enclosures are usually better for the viewer and not the snake. However keepers that keep their snakes in the larger enclosures say that their snake nearly never refuses food. A large enclosure is much better than racks because the snake is under very little stress. I personally keep most of my reptiles in racks but I'm not claiming that I prioritize the animals health over everything else.

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?

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?

I myself breed geckos and keep most of them in a rack system. However nobody that breeds reptiles places their animals health over everything else or they wouldn't breed them. Each breeder has something that motivates them and keeping & breeding reptiles is about the balance between them. I think breeders should be able to experiment with care types to achieve certain things. If you could get a snake to lay more eggs with no negative effects then would you try it? Even if you didn't would you have a problem with someone who does? This is the same, you're producing more snakes and so far there haven't been any harmful effects and I doubt there will be.
The original motivation:

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.

Close, but not quite. He originally started in the hobby because he enjoyed it, like most successful breeders. He then turned it into a business and was required to think about earning money for breeding to be successful in his job. The basis of keeping and breeding wild animals in captivity is based off of experimentation. I also don't think he deserves so much hate for applying results from a study on digestion on his own animals. He is making money faster and doing his job as well as he can.

Correct. It is about money or I could even somewhat agree about possibly his own enjoyment, but for sure, it wasn't about what could be best for the male bp's...

Your post leaves no doubt on your position...Its ok to experiment with the health of the snake -against known science- when its about personal enjoyment, money and breeding.

Erie explains why the long term affects don't matter:

The long term outcome doesn't matter at all...the males are disposable....bred for their genes and sold off like playing cards to someone else who wants those genes.

I'd rather discuss the science related to this but it isn't possible because the science only points one way when talking about longevity and health.

The folks making an effort to defend the subject at hand continue to show the truth behind the curtain.

Breeding, racks, and common husbandry isn't what's best for the snake. This method might not help the snake but it doesn't hurt them. Breeding in general is about personal enjoyment, money and breeding; that's why you need a balance between them and the animals safety. As I said above Wilbanks is trying to run a business. He has to make those kinds of decisions to sell snakes after their peak revenue passes. This isn't because he's a horrible keeper or breeder (which he's not) but because it's his job to run his business and that's what he has to do to make a living. This is from a study on digestion and the snake is meant to be able to do this in case of a food surplus.

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.

Replicating the "wild" and following a pattern of evolution are two separate entities.

Feeding an animal the way it should be fed based on scientific studies of the said animal's physiology is not replicating the wild.

As I stated earlier, captivity is a different bag of tricks, but it DOES NOT change millions of years of evolution.

Elephants in captivity are not fed meat because they don't eat meat in the wild. They are fed a diet that would resemble their natural diet. A diet they have evolved to handle.

Feeding in that manner does not replicate the "wild" as your statement suggests.

Feeding a snake in a manner that replicates what it is biologically developed to handle is simply common sense.

Not only did JM's podcast link cover this, the link I provided does as well.

Boas and pythons may not be the same species as you pointed out.

Fair enough, but they do display convergent evolution.

Knowing that, one can surmise that not only are their hunting techniques similar, so are their reptilian digestive traits.

If ball pythons were designed to eat daily, they would have evolved to be constantly foraging predators. They are NOT.

They are ambush predators that depend on seasonality and the breeding and migration patterns of other animals.

Pythons were developed to be able to fast because of the food in the wild. It's unrealistic to think that a snake in the wild will be able to find and catch something to eat daily unless there is a major surplus in which they will grow faster. In captivity there's theoretically unlimited food for a snake. If they mature faster with more smaller meals in the wild then why shouldn't we replicate that in captivity? It doesn't help the snake, it benefits the keeper. However it doesn't hurt the snake and there's no good reason not to.

Taxing the system of an animal that eats infrequently with an unnatural, daily feeding regime will eventually have negative consequences. Big meal, small meal, normal meal, the system still has to work and rest. Not allowing that natural process to occur unhealthy.

In fairness, the consequences may be reversible if the snake is allowed to go back to a normal cycle. You may be able to get away with daily feeding for a short period of time though I'm guessing on that point.

What I see here is unnatural feeding to attain rapid size for earlier breeding plain and simple. Nothing benefits the male royal by doing this.

Over feeding and over breeding will take a toll on the health of almost any living thing.

How do you figure the digestive system has to rest. The method of this is that the digestive system doesn't have to keep starting and stopping saving energy. That extra saved energy goes to maturing the snake quicker causing it to be able to breed quicker. Breeding doesn't benefit the python, if anything harms it, but look how popular breeding has become. That's what the entire hobby of breeding/keeping is, the balance between what motivates the breeder, practicality, and the snakes health. None of them are placed as the only priority. Overfeeding is when you give the snake too much food. The "Wilbanks Method" is when you give the snake more smaller meals to save energy from digestion. If you think that it takes more energy then explain how the snake matures faster. You have the same amount of food going in (50g mouse = 5x 10g mouse) so where does the extra energy come from to mature the male faster? Saving energy from digestion.

[jmcrook]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bns]

Erie_herps,

There is no way this will come out correctly but I mean this in the best way possible...

You are not ready to discuss the things you have formed such strong opinions about (and I'm not talking about morals and ethics).... Research and observe to gain a better understanding on husbandry, digestion and longevity -if you can look outside the business model.

[Gio]

The original Morphmarket post said that this was from a study on digestion. So no I don't think that their digestion system would do this if it were harmful to the snake. I may be wrong but until I see concrete evidence that the snake is suffering problems then I assume this method safe.


Yes the decorative enclosures are usually better for the viewer and not the snake. However keepers that keep their snakes in the larger enclosures say that their snake nearly never refuses food. A large enclosure is much better than racks because the snake is under very little stress. I personally keep most of my reptiles in racks but I'm not claiming that I prioritize the animals health over everything else.


I myself breed geckos and keep most of them in a rack system. However nobody that breeds reptiles places their animals health over everything else or they wouldn't breed them. Each breeder has something that motivates them and keeping & breeding reptiles is about the balance between them. I think breeders should be able to experiment with care types to achieve certain things. If you could get a snake to lay more eggs with no negative effects then would you try it? Even if you didn't would you have a problem with someone who does? This is the same, you're producing more snakes and so far there haven't been any harmful effects and I doubt there will be.
The original motivation:

Close, but not quite. He originally started in the hobby because he enjoyed it, like most successful breeders. He then turned it into a business and was required to think about earning money for breeding to be successful in his job. The basis of keeping and breeding wild animals in captivity is based off of experimentation. I also don't think he deserves so much hate for applying results from a study on digestion on his own animals. He is making money faster and doing his job as well as he can.


Breeding, racks, and common husbandry isn't what's best for the snake. This method might not help the snake but it doesn't hurt them. Breeding in general is about personal enjoyment, money and breeding; that's why you need a balance between them and the animals safety. As I said above Wilbanks is trying to run a business. He has to make those kinds of decisions to sell snakes after their peak revenue passes. This isn't because he's a horrible keeper or breeder (which he's not) but because it's his job to run his business and that's what he has to do to make a living. This is from a study on digestion and the snake is meant to be able to do this in case of a food surplus.


Pythons were developed to be able to fast because of the food in the wild. It's unrealistic to think that a snake in the wild will be able to find and catch something to eat daily unless there is a major surplus in which they will grow faster. In captivity there's theoretically unlimited food for a snake. If they mature faster with more smaller meals in the wild then why shouldn't we replicate that in captivity? It doesn't help the snake, it benefits the keeper. However it doesn't hurt the snake and there's no good reason not to.


How do you figure the digestive system has to rest. The method of this is that the digestive system doesn't have to keep starting and stopping saving energy. That extra saved energy goes to maturing the snake quicker causing it to be able to breed quicker. Breeding doesn't benefit the python, if anything harms it, but look how popular breeding has become. That's what the entire hobby of breeding/keeping is, the balance between what motivates the breeder, practicality, and the snakes health. None of them are placed as the only priority. Overfeeding is when you give the snake too much food. The "Wilbanks Method" is when you give the snake more smaller meals to save energy from digestion. If you think that it takes more energy then explain how the snake matures faster. You have the same amount of food going in (50g mouse = 5x 10g mouse) so where does the extra energy come from to mature the male faster? Saving energy from digestion.

Your entire argument goes against the biology of the animals you speak of.

It is also obvious that it is based solely on making an animal mature faster so it can be bred for profit and re-bred again.

None of this benefits the animal as you stated. It is puppy mill mentality when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it. Doing it because breeding has become "popular" isn't a good enough reason IMO.

You are incorrect about the digestive system as well. I suggest listening to the links provided and doing a little more science based reading. Pythons DO NOT eat daily, nor should they. Digesting constantly doesn't save energy. Digesting takes energy to be accomplished. As I stated, you should read through the links and field studies. Just because the animal grows faster doesn't mean that growth is healthy growth.

There are also genetic traits that determine whether or not one animal will grow faster than another. Not all pythons are the same size as adults, and not all mature at the same rate. Feeding isn't always the factor. Size does not always equate to maturity.



There are physiologic processes that take place within the snake when digesting. Organs enlarge, acids are produced, there is an effect on the heart. Those processes should never be in a continual state of motion. Hence the adaptations reptiles have made to seasonal changes and migrations.

If you think the daily feeding regime is a wonderful idea, salute.

Millions and millions of years of evolution say otherwise.

Feeding an animal in a manner that is based on science and the said animal's pattern in the wild is healthier and proven to produce long lived snakes.

This whole argument is driven by profit and not the health of the animal.