should i even ????

[TessadasExotics]

Not knowing does effectively make it ok, because, well, that's the effect of not knowing it's not ok.

LOL! Oh so true.

The only problem is that we will inadvertently create a problem for ourselves (the ball pythons actually) in the long run. For those that aren’t in it for the long run who cares? For us that are, then we should. I am a firm believer that most of the problems we have now with balls are due to this mistake. I would be willing to bet we will start to see more deformities in other lines later on. More duckbills, small eyes, bug eyes, no eyes, kinks, etc., etc.
Only time will tell.

[stevepoppers]

I think we agree on most points. Long term inbreeding for more than necessary to prove something is a bad idea. Outbreed whenever possible.

Idk about the so-called "defects" being caused by inbreeding. There are genes known as "activator genes" or something like that, which activate whole other groups of genes. So maybe the spider morph (example) is one of these activator or switch genes, which activate both the pattern mutation AND the wobble and there's no way to separate them because the only gene we can work on is the switch gene. Scientists have switched a single gene on a fly and caused legs to grow where antennae should grow! Switch genes are though to be the main difference between humans and chimps.

That may be right on some of the others, though. Duckbills certainly aren't linked that way.

In this case, he's just trying to prove a trait, so I say go for it.

[dr del]

Hi,

Really? Really?

Does no one really understand how things work? Or does not knowing make it ok? If you inbreed sib to sib it is much worse than line breeding.

Actually yes, I understand a bit about how these things work. I understand the fact siblings may contain far more identical genetic material than a father/ daughter can.

I also know that every animal humans use commercially or domestically has been extensively inbred and linebred. They do not all have problems. In fact they are working hard on mice and rats and have produced extremely hardy and vigorous lines through the responsible and controled use of both linebreeding and inbreeding. The same holds true for cattle and sheep etc.

It increases the chance of expression for the genes in the animal - both good and bad. If you breed out the bad genes as they crop up then the line gets stronger not weaker.

We have not always done this as a species.

Secondly if you inbreed or line breed 2-4 or 20 generations and then sell any of the offspring. Someone who gets one of the babies later on down the line, may in turn do the same thing because "it's cool, ok, and widely acceptable" to do. Now the further down the line you go it now goes from being inbred not just 2-4 or 20 but now its 20-40 or 200 generations.

Some already explained the flaw in your logic here.

If they bought siblings then your scenario becomes more likely - but, again, it merely amplifies what is there - take away the bad as it appears and you will eventually end up with animals without problems. A smaller variation in the genepool to deal with any environmental changes admitedly but I fail to see why that is critical in a pet species.

Once again. Inbreeding is not acceptable (or at least shouldn't be) and shouldn't be practiced. Line breeding should only be done to prove out a trait.

The first part is simply your opinion.

And, as to the second part, if you go back to the begining of the thread and read it again..... that is exactly what he is trying to do.

I am a firm believer that most of the problems we have now with balls are due to this mistake.

This is not altogether correct. All the morphs we have came from the wild and several exhibit problems no matter how outbred they are.

I would be willing to bet we will start to see more deformities in other lines later on. More duckbills, small eyes, bug eyes, no eyes, kinks, etc., etc.
Only time will tell.

Then we should either try and remove the problem by selective breeding or stop breeding them altogether if the problem is serious enough.

It is a tool, nothing more. And one mother nature herself has used remarkably often - she just has a more rigourous testing and culling proceedure.


dr del

[stevepoppers]

[Inbreeding] increases the chance of expression for the genes in the animal - both good and bad. If you breed out the bad genes as they crop up then the line gets stronger not weaker.

I like this. I think it's crucial to how one thinks about all this. How exactly is that done? Remove the animal expressing the "bad" gene and possibly it's parents from the line? (Sorry, I know that's getting pretty off topic.) This is something I've never really understood. And won't the line still suffer from lack of "hybrid vigor"?

[dr del]

Hi,

Yes that is exactly how you remove it.

Any animal expressing it gets removed from the genepool for the next generation.

Depending on the genepool you start with containing the traits you do want you might be forced to re-breed the parents - you will also want to find out the genetic inheritability of the bad gene as well.

No point in removing visuals and discovering it was a recessive trait and you now have a whole generation of hets for example.

Removing genes is just as complicated as adding them to make that dream morph combo - if not more so as absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence.

Hybrid vigour comes back to the genetic variation available to combat diseases or problems affecting the species so yes, it could become a problem.

Lack of it in the wild could be devastating to a species.

In captivity we have to ask if we could medicate, innoculate or otherwise interfere with the problem - we have with every other species we keep after all, including humans.


dr del

[TessadasExotics]

Hi,

Yes that is exactly how you remove it.

Any animal expressing it gets removed from the genepool for the next generation.

Except it gets a little hard if it’s something that doesn't show up right away and you already sold off some of the offspring. Or maybe we have already crossed it into other morphs which are now tainted. So now we have to try to track down every one that purchased said snakes. Hmm maybe it’s too hard and we just say forget it. Or maybe we just simply don't care and don't even try to contact any one.
It happens and it's a shame. IMO it's better to not do it to begin with. To each of us our own I guess. We will continue to try to steer others away from inbreeding. No good will ever come from it. Controlled (and responsible) line breeding cannot, I repeat NOT, be done when offspring are being sold to others. We can only controll our own actions, not others.

Don't confuse what I say or what I believe in. There is a difference in line (back) breeding and inbreeding (siblingXsibling). Line breeding TO PROVE OUT A trait is of course acceptable and is common practice. It is the only way to prove out a trait when you have only one animal showing this trait. There really is no need to breed sibXsib and it SHOULD NOT be done. Take the time to back breed. This is of course OUR position. We will, like I said, try to persuade others not to inbreed.


Again yes, this is an opinion. It is our opinion. It is based on well educated and EXPERIENCED facts. Any research will show that sibXsib isn't good. Many defects can and will show up when practicing it.

[dr del]

Hi,

And they show up in the most widely unrelated breedings too.

It's a mutation - they happen randomly all the time. Some are good, some are irrelevant and some are bad, some stand alone and some only present in combination.

Everything you say in the first paragraph is true of every single breeding of every single organism since life began.

Perhaps if you told the person you are selling to exactly how much line or inbreeding you did with that animal they would be responsible enough to make an informed decision - of course the people you bought it from would also have had to tell you that same information. And mother nature would have to tell the guy who collected it or it's parents from the wild of course for any of that to be properly placed in context. You cannot claim moral authority that only you can determine what is an acceptable level of line or inbreeding when you know no more about your animals genetic history than joe blow buying one form a pet store. Sorry to be so blunt but that is the Gods honest truth.

The animal you linebreed to prove out the trait could have been inbred sib to sib in the wild for the last 300 generations for all you know.

Your second paragraph just denied that there has been any advantage to farming and agriculture since that began either.

Oh and superdwarf retics, dwarf burms, loacality boas, galapagos tortoises and darwins finches are also apparently "no good" using that argument - any island or otherwise isolated population by your logic should be full of deformed and sicky animals.

Perhaps you can explain to me why this is not the case in reality?

Backbreeding does indeed have fewer risks as it has a significantly higher chance of having more differences in the genetic makeup than sib to sib so each individual gene has a smaller chance of being expressed. But both happen very, very often in nature and have driven evolution to the point it is currently at.

And to accurately evaluate those specific risks we would need to know considerably more about the ball python geneome than we currently do.

You are perfectly free to continue to try and convince people not to linebreed or inbreed their animals - I'm simply showing you that the evidence does not entirely support your assertions. Your claims that the evidence and research supports you is utter, utter bunk.

For example go research mitochondrial eve. (here and here are a few links to get you started ).

But I don't think interbeeding (line or inbreeding ) is happening to the extent you mention on any noticable scale within the hobby in any case.

There will be a few examples but it is hardly common - we are not all hatching out hundreds of frankensnakes every year.

Time will tell if you are a true seer of future problems or tilting at windmills. At this time we simply do not know enough to tell.

Again, if the problem is already in the animals genetic makeup inbreeding or linebreeding will increase the chances of expressing it. If it isn't then it won't.


dr del

[BAMReptiles]

I like this. I think it's crucial to how one thinks about all this. How exactly is that done? Remove the animal expressing the "bad" gene and possibly it's parents from the line? (Sorry, I know that's getting pretty off topic.) This is something I've never really understood. And won't the line still suffer from lack of "hybrid vigor"?

hybrid vigor applies to just that hybrids. ie: burmball/carpall/superball

also as ive said before the whole inbreeding sibs thing isnt really gunna cause any problems that werent already there. dr del pretty much hit the nail on the head with his lengthy post as well

[DJ_Bizarre]

I know this is a little off topic but I made a chart so people could see what I am thinking, if line breeding is ok knowing that the son or daughter being bred could use the matching gene of the parent, what about half-brother and sisters? I am just curious because it seems like the same type of possibility of matching genes could occur.



and sorry for the extremely crude chart, just threw something together in paint lol

[TessadasExotics]

It's a mutation - they happen randomly all the time. Some are good, some are irrelevant and some are bad, some stand alone and some only present in combination.

Everything you say in the first paragraph is true of every single breeding of every single organism since life began.

hmm

You cannot claim moral authority that only you can determine what is an acceptable level of line or inbreeding when you know no more about your animals genetic history than joe blow buying one form a pet store. Sorry to be so blunt but that is the Gods honest truth.

Never did try to claim "moral authority". If someone asks if they should do it or not, I give my thoughts.

Back breeding does indeed have fewer risks as it has a significantly higher chance of having more differences in the genetic makeup than sib to sib so each individual gene has a smaller chance of being expressed. But both happen very, very often in nature and have driven evolution to the point it is currently at.

And to accurately evaluate those specific risks we would need to know considerably more about the ball python genome than we currently do.

So what are you arguing about then? This is also my point.

You are perfectly free to continue to try and convince people not to line breed or inbreed their animals - I'm simply showing you that the evidence does not entirely support your assertions. Your claims that the evidence and research supports you is utter, utter bunk.

I have stated again and again that Line breeding is understandable and of course needed. Bunk? so why contradict yourself in your previous comments? It's not Bunk.

Whom are you trying to convince, yourself or me? You seem to be trying to argue over nothing. You agree and say it’s not good but then say it is. Now I am confused.

No matter, we each have our own thoughts. To each their own.