-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Non-feeders to breeders?
- Thread starter Kerri
- Start date
ghosthousecorns
Well-known member
I would not want to take that chance.
TripleMoonsExotic
I <3 Stripes!
I don't force feed at all. Non-feeders are culled after their health starts deteriorating. The goal of every breeder should be to produce the best, healthiest pets (or breeders) for their customers. I don't find non-feeders the best or healthiest examples of a species.
Everyone will have a different opinion on the subject. If it's helpful, I've produced non-feeders from perfect feeder parents. I actually had 1/2 a clutch refuse to eat for unknown reasons from parents that were great feeders. :shrugs:
Everyone will have a different opinion on the subject. If it's helpful, I've produced non-feeders from perfect feeder parents. I actually had 1/2 a clutch refuse to eat for unknown reasons from parents that were great feeders. :shrugs:
admitchell08
Read Katy Manula
What do you mean they go to the freezer? Does it mean that is a way of euthanizing them? Or what? I am new to all of this so I was just curious as to what it meant. Thanks!
vetusvates
Gamaliel's Principle
I think Drew is logged off. But the answer to your question number 2 above is yes.
admitchell08
Read Katy Manula
Oh ok I see. Thank you for clearing that up with me!
vetusvates
Gamaliel's Principle
In my experience, there are at times, nonfeeders who in time become feeders. But logic dictates that if a healthy adult that was always a robustly healthy feeder can produce nonfeeders,.... that does not mean a now-healthy adult, once a non/poor-feeder, won't produce perfectly normal feeding young.
For the sake of making a point : If poor feeders are always culled, and I realize that this (precisely) was neither said nor implied above, and never allowed to mature....then how would you possibly ever know you could speak as to the health or disposition of their offspring?
There exist breeders who sell non-feeders or poor-feeders...stated as such...and usually for a lower price. Some make it, some don't. Some people have a special touch with early poor feeders. Some people have no interest or need to go to the trouble.
If a young snake makes a turn around, and makes it normally to adulthood (breeding age), IMHO I see no reason to refrain from breeding the snake. If the babies feed well and thrive, you'll know, and can sell or give them away with confidence. If the said adult yields babies that do not feed and do not thrive, you will know. And can avoid the future travails of using the snake as a breeder.
I say this to a "small operation" keeper of snakes. One patient, and not out to make money and/or mass produce snakes.
Large scale breeders have enough snakes and enough robustly healthy snakes that they are in a position to decline to go to so much trouble. And logically don't.
To answer your original question : It may or may not be in their genes to produce problem feeders.
For the sake of making a point : If poor feeders are always culled, and I realize that this (precisely) was neither said nor implied above, and never allowed to mature....then how would you possibly ever know you could speak as to the health or disposition of their offspring?
There exist breeders who sell non-feeders or poor-feeders...stated as such...and usually for a lower price. Some make it, some don't. Some people have a special touch with early poor feeders. Some people have no interest or need to go to the trouble.
If a young snake makes a turn around, and makes it normally to adulthood (breeding age), IMHO I see no reason to refrain from breeding the snake. If the babies feed well and thrive, you'll know, and can sell or give them away with confidence. If the said adult yields babies that do not feed and do not thrive, you will know. And can avoid the future travails of using the snake as a breeder.
I say this to a "small operation" keeper of snakes. One patient, and not out to make money and/or mass produce snakes.
Large scale breeders have enough snakes and enough robustly healthy snakes that they are in a position to decline to go to so much trouble. And logically don't.
To answer your original question : It may or may not be in their genes to produce problem feeders.
ghosthousecorns
Well-known member
I tend to euthanize the non feeders as well. having tried the whole force feeeding thing and finding that most snakes I tried it with did not live anyway after putting them through all the stress of forcing a meal down their throats. It's probably true that non eaters might be perfectly capable of producing good eaters, but again it's a chance you have to decide if it is worth taking. I will say that I have had clutches of pickier eaters that took more work to get going and clutches where every single snake seemed to eat with few of the hatchlings requiring the bag of tricks to be gone through. The good eaters just make your life easier, they are ready to sell sooner, you don't have to breed your own mice for them, make tuna juice or chicken broth concoctions for them, they are less stressful to work with and don't sit in your rack for a long time while you try every way you can to get them to the point of taking a f/t. Poor eaters make breeding snakes harder work, good eaters make it fun and rewarding. Sometimes you might only have one snake with the genes you want and you go through every kind of hoop to get them going, but if you have a choice to use a good eater or a poor one for your breeding program, using a poor one is possibly setting yourself up for all kinds of hassles.
Drewby07
curiocreatures.com
I've also got to agree with these last two responses. Perhaps it would be a viable "project" to breed a non-feeder and see how many non-feeders show up in the offspring.
If this is done, however, you'd need to be prepared for possibly producing hatchlings that do not thrive. It's not unheard of for breeders to have to euthanize an entire clutch. I believe TME had an experience like that.
If this is done, however, you'd need to be prepared for possibly producing hatchlings that do not thrive. It's not unheard of for breeders to have to euthanize an entire clutch. I believe TME had an experience like that.
bitsy
Owned by Corns since 1991
A Corn breeder of some twenty years near me, says that he breeds only Corns that eat reliably from hatching. As a result, he rarely produces persistant non-feeders. His view is that the tendency to eat reliably (or not) can be selectively bred for. He does sell any Corns that have given him problems when starting out, but he won't keep them or use them for breeding himself.
If you're looking to develop a new or newish morph then you may be limited to whatever is available. But if it's an established morph, I'd look for another animal with a more robust approach to food to start a breeding project.
If you're looking to develop a new or newish morph then you may be limited to whatever is available. But if it's an established morph, I'd look for another animal with a more robust approach to food to start a breeding project.
Thanks for all your replies. I have been researching this for the last couple of weeks or so and have decided not to breed my female. I've also aquired some pretty strong opinions on this topic. IMO, it's just not worth it. I couldn't find any case studies or "non-feeder breeding projects" anywhere on the web. I also contacted a few breeders who sell non-feeders and pretty much got the same answer from all of them, "We don't breed non-feeders". So then why do they sell them? Maybe they would produce good feeding offspring, maybe they wouldn't. Why take the chance? Why take the chance of adding unwanted genetic traits into our corn snakes? Whether it be breeding non-feeders yourself (to sell or give away) or selling non-feeders to someone elese who will likely breed or sell the surviving hatchlings, IMO you're likely adding more complexities to the already complex genetics and to the future of our CB corn snakes.
Wow....I really sounded like a ***** last night. I really wasn't trying to "attack" anybody, I was just.....venting. It is something to think about though. I really wish someone would prove this "theory" wrong. I have a butter female, who was a big time problem feeder, that is way above average as far as brightness goes, and I would love for someone to convince me that it's not genetic.
TripleMoonsExotic
I <3 Stripes!
The problem with someone attempting to prove the theory wrong is that one would have the risk of having to cull entire clutches if it was proven correct. Most breeders have no desire to take the time and money required to pursue such a venture (especially since it would take multiple breeding's from multiple animals to prove out). At that, as you described, some still sell the non-feeders...Just adding to the vicious cycle going 'round and 'round.
ForkedTung
Serpent Mound Monk
OK Then, Eric, Steph,and Jen all had great posts with great points...Here's the thing I have a little problem with.
Snakes are so many millenia old. they have evolved to have no legs or other external appendages other than the vestigal claws found on some Boidae, making them a highly specialized and ancient animal. With this in mind how could a gene for non-eating have survived for this long?
Other than a gene for abstinence this "suicide" gene ( Both of which would preclude reproduction by the very nature of the behavior these genes would supposedly induce.) would probably have been selectively bred out aeons ago.
So why picky/non feeders?
My guess would be that it is something environmental that occurs as a result of captivity. This could include anything from neurological problems caused by incubating ( eg. no natural temp fluctuations etc...) to the food we offer or the physical environments we provide.
I guess there could be a case made for the "environmental" genetic games we play when breeding them and that a complex combination of factors may present that may cause a higher likelihood for nonfeeding.
I just don't buy the idea that there is an actual gene for non-feeding it goes against all survival instinct and evolutionary theory. IMHO.
Snakes are so many millenia old. they have evolved to have no legs or other external appendages other than the vestigal claws found on some Boidae, making them a highly specialized and ancient animal. With this in mind how could a gene for non-eating have survived for this long?
Other than a gene for abstinence this "suicide" gene ( Both of which would preclude reproduction by the very nature of the behavior these genes would supposedly induce.) would probably have been selectively bred out aeons ago.
So why picky/non feeders?
My guess would be that it is something environmental that occurs as a result of captivity. This could include anything from neurological problems caused by incubating ( eg. no natural temp fluctuations etc...) to the food we offer or the physical environments we provide.
I guess there could be a case made for the "environmental" genetic games we play when breeding them and that a complex combination of factors may present that may cause a higher likelihood for nonfeeding.
I just don't buy the idea that there is an actual gene for non-feeding it goes against all survival instinct and evolutionary theory. IMHO.
TripleMoonsExotic
I <3 Stripes!
I never said their was or was not a gene specifically targeting for non-feeders. I said I cull non-feeders because I do not find them healthy examples of any species regardless of whether or not it is genetic. Non-feeding is not a good thing and if their is a possibility that the animals are genetically predisposed (via a single gene or multiple genes as in selective breeding) to be a non-feeder their genetics should not be passed on. No one has proven it one way or another...I personally would not take the risk of breeding a non-feeder (if I had made the decision to force feed as opposed to just culling). I also think it is incredibly stressful for the animal and on the verge of being cruel to shove a food item (or a tool to shove a food item) down an animals throat.
ForkedTung
Serpent Mound Monk
Steph, My post was not directed at anyone or anything prior to my own post.
The words are soley my thoughts on the whole "genetic" aspect of non-feeding.
I would also suspect that if a study were done on non-feeders, they would find very little, if any, parental influence.
With all that being said: I don't knowingly breed any animals known to be non-feeders. I also disclose any that I sell as live feeders, as such.
Okay....so a few good points have been made. But I still don't understand why someone that does not "knowingly breed any animals known to be non-feeders" still sells all their non- feeders. If you wouldn't breed them, why would you put them out there where it is likley they would be bred by someone elese. This seems to be the case with quite a few people I've talked to. If these breeders don't think it is a genetic trait, and decide it's ok to sell non-feeders, then why do these breeders stay away from breeding non-feeders themselves???
ForkedTung
Serpent Mound Monk
Here is something else that needs to be considered Kerri:
What is your definition of a non-feeder? Refused one meal, two, live only, F/T brained, special prep ( chicken broth etc..), ate a few times then refused, pinkie pumped once or twice,?
So which is it?
Many hatchlings have initial feeding problems that don't require force feeding etc..? At what point, please be specific, do you consider them to be non-feeders that they should be destroyed?