I don't see mass testing of large ball python collections becoming commonplace because of the perception that they don't tend to live for months or even years as carriers like the boas do. And, even if one ball python in a collection is a carrier and shows no signs of being infected post-QT, chances are that another BP in the rack will contract and show symptoms of the disease.
The hobbyists will be more likely to test at first. Someone with a few snakes can cover the cost more easily, especially if they only test the snakes they have obtained over the prior few years - again, assuming that it's very rare that carriers don't show symptoms in that timeframe. The hobbyist may also only purchase 1-2 new boas each year, so having the test done as part of the QT process isn't a wallet-breaker. As an example I only have five BCI's total with plans for just one more this summer, so it likely wouldn't be a big expense to have them all done.
Anyone in the business will have to weigh the costs and benefits of testing versus not. A few have been touched on: taking a hit to the value of the collection, having to cull or isolate IBD+ animals, the damage to your reputation if you sell an IBD+ animal and the buyer blasts that all over the various BOI's, etc. Breeders may decide it to test just the animals that are up for sale as well a new arrivals as the most cost-effective way to protect themselves.
Something I haven't seen is a potential price range for the test, as well as the error rates for false positives and false negatives, as that will also play into whether or not the test's use becomes widespread. If the test is around $25, shows IBD+ 100% of the time, and IBD- 99% (meaning there's a 1% chance your snake has it even with an IBD- test result) then I'd be more likely to test my collection than if the test is $100, shows IBD+ 90%, and IBD- 75%.
Finally, if I were handling WC imports straight off the plane then they would all be tested as part of the intake process.
Reply With Quote