I think the reason this started to begin with is that the volatile oils in pine clearly are toxic to rodents--rats and mice kept on pine suffer from increased incidence of respiratory ailments, and generally die at a younger age, showing signs of changes to their internal organs consistent with toxin exposure, such as elevated liver enzymes, as well as increased mortality rates in pups.
Therefore, it was concluded, if these volatile oils can be so harmful to rodents, they probably are not good for snakes either, since snakes tend to have fairly delicate respiratory systems.
But no--I've not heard of an actual study being done on snakes.
However, if true, then one would expect to see a somewhat increased incidence of RIs in snakes on pine, and one would expect them to generally die at a younger age than snakes kept on toxin-free substrates. The problem is, ball pythons can live for up to 30 years, so what exactly is a 'younger age'? A person with an old snake that dies may not bother to have it necropsied...and relatively few people have had a ball python for its entire 25 to 30 years of life.
The story of pine is simply one of 'playing it safe'. Something proven harmful and toxic to other animals is best avoided until studies are done that prove it safe for snakes. There is no reason to consider it safe until proven otherwise when it clearly kills rats. It's cheaper, yes--but the bottom line of an extra few years of life for a python is worth more to a breeder than the bit of extra savings from using pine over aspen--even if you remove the ethical considerations entirely.
Or, to put it more simply, do you want to trust your female coral glow pied to a bedding that causes rats to wheeze and snuffle and die at half their usual lifespan?
Reply With Quote