The dirty little secrets of morphs

[NorthernRegius.com]

While I totally agree with the part of your reply that I put in BOLD, the problem is not everyone is going to agree that there is a problem. For example, in my case...ever since I saw my first "Black Ball" I have wanted to make one myself, I had seen and heard of pairings where the supers (Patternless Blacks) had facial deformaties that many people call "Duckbilling" I was originaly told that it was caused from breeding sibxsib of one "Type" either CinnamonxCinnamon or BlackxBlack....and I was told if I bred a CinnamonxBlack it probably would "Correct" the duckbilling....but I now see that it hasn't worked out that way...even the CinnamonxBlacks have it. Now I contacted a VERY well known breeder who sent me pics of thier Supers...and made it clear that to them they didn't see a problem...They either didn't see the duckbilling or they didn't see it as a problem...I was shocked To me its VERY noticable...and I wouldn't want to breed for that...if there was not fix...

I don't have a problem with genetic issues if there is a way to correct it, many morphs sometimes come with issues untill they are outcrossed or bred to something to correct the problem...I don't have a problem with that...its when the problem is tied to the morph, and there is no way to correct it...thats where I draw the line.

Getting people to agree on what is ok and whats not is never going to happen, especially when high dollar morphs are involved....Many people will argue that we are not releasing these snakes back into the wild...so what does it matter...it all comes down to individual preference...While some might be even more extreme and not even breed Albinos as they are inferior to normals genetics wise...My personal standard to live by is I want morphs that look physically (Body wise) like a normal ball python, I want them to act like a normal Ball Python, the only thing I want to change is thier "Paint Jobs" if that makes any scense....To me Super Cinnamons or Super Black Pastels heads/faces look VERY different and deformed to me compaired to a normal ball python...Spiders...often times don't act like normal ball pythons....Carmels...it seems that the kinking thing as not really worked itself out...and now all of a sudden we have "New Kinkless Lines" of carmels popping up...???

It seems the dark side of the hobby is not talked about very much...its not an open thing...Its like a Taboo Topic...While I fully understand nobody wants to talk about Ball Pythons in a negative light...but I think the more people discuss thier failures or issues with certain morphs the better things will be....I know not everyone is going expereince problems or issues...but some people might...Some people might not care...some people might...

Just curious....You mentioned you had a spider that did not exhibit neuro problems/spinning/wobbling but giving that the knowledge is out there now that even though your spider might not exhibit it now...that it might exhibit it later or produce offspring that do...are you planning on breeding it?

Let's first look at the duck-bill issue- a solid head does look wider than a head with the normal pinstriping on the sides. I've looked at a few Supers and at first the head "looked" wider, until I really compared the actual foot print to another BP... not saying that there are no defects, just that I've not seen them directly. I've heard of them so I know they exist.

We are working with life, there is risk no matter what you do. Acknowledging the risk & doing one's best to minimize it, is the best we can do. I like to stack the deck in my favor when ever I can.

I have 1.1 GCR line (unrelated) Black Pastels... I'm breeding the girl to a pastel for pewters this year... I purchased new blood this year- a Cinny Pewter & Black Pewter that will grow up and breed either my Pastel male or my Black Pastel male down the road... the Cinny to my Black Pastel is my thought. Silver Streaks, Sliver Bullets and Supers- and how will I handle the risk? By accepting responsibility for what I produce. By selling only healthy hearty snakes. By being accountable first to myself then to my customer.

You have noted correctly that not everyone will do as you or I do... but you look for & do business with those that you believe "get it" and uphold the same principles that are important to you.

I don't fret over the others that do differently, I mind my own store.
***********
You asked about my Spider girl, do I intend to breed her? Yes, I do in the future. I have a desire to make the Axanthic Bee, & I have all the ingredients for the project. In fact, I'm cycling my SK line Axanthic pair now, (just to be sure they are both SK-lol). My Spider will be ready next season. It's a risk... a calculated one that I go into eyes wide open. I stand by my rules of not breeding less-than-perfect animals, so we'll see how far I get. I may fail, if so I'll likely substitute the Pin for Spider in the project. That's my backup plan.

I won't say it's not about the money... but money is NOT the first thing I think about. I am motivated to produce quality animals & to improve the breed whenever I can. I accept the risks that come with it. I love these snakes & am happy to work with them.

 

[viper69]

We as breeders, have an interesting road ahead of us... we have to decide where the line is drawn with what we produce. I believe if something is produced that has the slightest defect... you do not breed it- period. This is more important now than ever because we have a much higher survival rate than nature & if we truly wish to improve the species then we breed only the best.

Still, I feel there is room for those snakes who, while not fit for breeding can live a full life... those are your pet-quality animals. Thoughts?

I neglected to mention my position on breeding, and I completely agree with Northern's above quote 100%. To continue breeding animals with genetic defects that are significant is a terrible idea. The one thing that always amazed in the herp world is how many people cross siblings and parents back to each other. In humans, that causes severe genetic defects, or can. Yet with herps, it appears that it often doesn't. I say APPEARS. I suspect that with enough crossing genetic defects WILL occur. Inbreeding is bad period, maybe not for the F1 generation or even F2. But ultimately the population will suffer.

As breeders these people really have to think carefully about what they are doing, that is to breed or not to breed animals that have these genetic defects. As I alluded to earlier, the more genetic defects that are in an organism the increasing chance of ending up with a disasterous outcome increases.

As an example at large, just look at zoos, that monitor the gene pool of many of their captives because they are concerned about inbreeding.

I feel this neurological defect in the spider and others, is just the tip of the iceberg, and potentially could lead to more problems.

 

[ExecutiveReptiles]

I feel this neurological defect in the spider and others, is just the tip of the iceberg, and potentially could lead to more problems.

But with the case of spiders, aren't they just about the most outcrossed morph known to date? It seems that outcrossing hasn't helped the Spiders, its a genetic tweek that is passed on with the morph no matter what its bred too right? The siblings of spiders don't exhibit this "quirk"....right?

I don't want to "Call" anyone out...I am personally having second thoughts of producing Super Black PastelsxCinnamons...why cause of the high occurances of facial deformaties...I have looked at many supers in the flesh...and to me there is something wrong with thier snouts..and there doesn't seem to be a fix for it....so now I am rethinking the idea of producing any.

Originally Posted by NorthernRegius.com
We as breeders, have an interesting road ahead of us... we have to decide where the line is drawn with what we produce. I believe if something is produced that has the slightest defect... you do not breed it- period. This is more important now than ever because we have a much higher survival rate than nature & if we truly wish to improve the species then we breed only the best

Originally Posted by Viper69
I neglected to mention my position on breeding, and I completely agree with Northern's above quote 100%. To continue breeding animals with genetic defects that are significant is a terrible idea.

But if you knowningly breed a morph that there is a high percentage chance of something being wrong with it...wouldn't that kind of contradict what your saying here?

I don't want to point fingers...but if you have a spider...and the information out there is that Spiders have this wobble/spinning/neuro issue...and that there is a good chance that even if your spider doesn't spin/wobble or show signs of neuro issues that its offspring could...why would you breed it?

I am curious how someone can work with spiders and take that stance on the subject? What classifies a slight defect? or even a significan one? If there is nothing that can prevent the problem from occuring...and no matter how much outcrossing the "Defect" is still there...at what point is it not ok? To many that work with Spiders they just chaulk it up as just part of working with spiders...they down play it as it not being that big of a deal, and who knows it really might not be to them...but to me..I will never work with them...

But in the end...I guess this sums it all up...

Originally Posted by NorthernRegius.com
By accepting responsibility for what I produce. By selling only healthy hearty snakes. By being accountable first to myself then to my customer.

 

[ExecutiveReptiles]

Curious if anyone would like to make a list of issues or problems they have seen with certain morphs?

Here is what I have heard/seen (NOTE: I am not saying these are true problems, just what I have been told by people who work with them or seen first hand)

Bug Eyes in the Super Lesser Platinums
Lazy breeders or reproductive problems with Piebalds
Neurological type problems with Spiders
Kinking with certain lines of Carmels
Facial Deformaties with Super Black Pastels/Cinnamons
Fatal/non living Supers in Womas

Anyone else have one they have seen or heard about? Lets discuss some of these if you have expereinced any of these problems...

 

[viper69]

But with the case of spiders, aren't they just about the most outcrossed morph known to date? It seems that outcrossing hasn't helped the Spiders, its a genetic tweek that is passed on with the morph no matter what its bred too right? The siblings of spiders don't exhibit this "quirk"....right?

I don't want to "Call" anyone out...I am personally having second thoughts of producing Super Black PastelsxCinnamons...why cause of the high occurances of facial deformaties...I have looked at many supers in the flesh...and to me there is something wrong with thier snouts..and there doesn't seem to be a fix for it....so now I am rethinking the idea of producing any.



[/B]

But if you knowningly breed a morph that there is a high percentage chance of something being wrong with it...wouldn't that kind of contradict what your saying here?

I don't want to point fingers...but if you have a spider...and the information out there is that Spiders have this wobble/spinning/neuro issue...and that there is a good chance that even if your spider doesn't spin/wobble or show signs of neuro issues that its offspring could...why would you breed it?

I am curious how someone can work with spiders and take that stance on the subject? What classifies a slight defect? or even a significan one? If there is nothing that can prevent the problem from occuring...and no matter how much outcrossing the "Defect" is still there...at what point is it not ok? To many that work with Spiders they just chaulk it up as just part of working with spiders...they down play it as it not being that big of a deal, and who knows it really might not be to them...but to me..I will never work with them...

But in the end...I guess this sums it all up...

Who said I would breed spiders? You lost me on the contradiction...

 

[Mokele]

One issue a friend of mine noted with respect to the Spider spinning issue: pigment cells and sensory neurons derive from the same embryological tissue, neural crest cells. If the mutation which produces a particular pattern affects these cells, that opens up a whole new nasty world of possible side effects (these cells are also involved in many, many other parts of the body, including the wall of the aorta).

The one thing that always amazed in the herp world is how many people cross siblings and parents back to each other. In humans, that causes severe genetic defects, or can. Yet with herps, it appears that it often doesn't. I say APPEARS. I suspect that with enough crossing genetic defects WILL occur. Inbreeding is bad period, maybe not for the F1 generation or even F2. But ultimately the population will suffer.

Inbreeding tends to produce life-history problems before deformities - reduced lifespan, smaller size, reduce immune system function, smaller clutches, the sort of things you'd need very large sample sizes and proper statistical analysis to detect.

The problem with inbreeding is that the damage accumulates - each successive round of inbreeding results in more damage. Outbreeding can slow it, but the level needed to eliminate the damage is prohibitive complex and expensive (3+ outbred generations). Basically, any breeding method that makes it more likely for a desired recessive trait to show up makes it more likely that all sort of undesirable recessive traits will also show up.

Mokele

 

[viper69]

That is true about the embryological origins, the potential may exist for other problems.

Inbreeding issues, just depends on a variety of factors. I just read an article with humans, and the child came out either DOA, or severe defects. As I said, I'm amazed w/other species such things do not appear to happen often. I could be wrong.

You are also correct w/regard to large populations needed..that's true w/out a doubt.

As I said earlier..inbreeding is bad period. Successive inbreeding is even worse.

What will be done about it will depend upon the knowledge, and ethics of the breeder.

 

[NorthernRegius.com]

That is true about the embryological origins, the potential may exist for other problems.

Inbreeding issues, just depends on a variety of factors. I just read an article with humans, and the child came out either DOA, or severe defects. As I said, I'm amazed w/other species such things do not appear to happen often. I could be wrong.

You are also correct w/regard to large populations needed..that's true w/out a doubt.

As I said earlier..inbreeding is bad period. Successive inbreeding is even worse.

What will be done about it will depend upon the knowledge, and ethics of the breeder.

I've been breeding animals nearly my whole life. I was in FFA (Future Farmers of America), took 4 years of Ag Sci in our high school. My first project was rabbits (meat rabbits), later dogs, fish, show rabbits... etc now snakes.

Line breeding is necessary to prove a trait to be genetic with WC snakes. Now line breeding is also used in Ag. animals, show animals AND show dogs (which I am against the degree it's been done in dog breeds, but back on topic...).

Correct line breeding is parent to offspring. Sib to sib breeding is BAD... this is in the realm mammals & what's accepted as "proper". In rabbits you can line breed "3 deep" (momXson, then fatherXdaughter) before you need to out breed (go to unrelated animals). Why is line breeding done? to go for "type" as in the boxiness of the Black angus, the ears or wide head of Holland Lops... it can re-enforce favorable traits. When gone too far it also brings all the defects up to the surface... which is why there is that 3-deep rule for rabbits.

I wish to state- you breed any animal long enough you will see defects.

I saw them once in a while in my meat rabbits, (the does do tend to eat their still born) and in my Holland lops the dwarf gene is homozygous lethal. The doomed to die kits are called "peanuts'". Most breeders had 50% of their kits born this way, all because they were stubborn about keeping their animals small. I kept larger does as my breed stock & tiny bucks... still would have peanuts in 1 litter in 5. I got out of working with Hollands because I hated the high frequency of the need to cull.

Now I work with Boids...Pythons...mostly Regius. I see folks who do not have my prior animal experience line breeding snakes. I do not know enough about the differences in herps to factually state what is safe & what is not. I do know I do not wish to line breed as I'm working with CB stock. If I had a WC that needed proving I do know I'd breed parent to offspring, not sib to sib.

I keep a small collection in my office, not a wherehouse so I'm very careful to keep my genetics diverse. With Pastels & Black Pastels in my collection, some folks asked why did I get pewters if I'll be producing my own? Fair enough... but when I go to breed Pewters back to those sires I want unrelated animals. I feel that since every morph we work with was line bred to prove it, we need to out breed as much as we can to keep those genes nice and varied.

The OP has questioned my desire to work with my Spider, which I've answered in length in another thread... basically I have to know if it can be done... getting to an Axanthic Bee without wobbles. I must know... and if I can't I won't pawn off wobblers as okay- that's not how I do things. It's also why I decided against working with T+ albinos... I do want to own a Carmel Glow one day but I won't breed him/her.

Each of us does what makes sense to us, I don't have to agree with another breeder to respect them. I do choose to work only with people who genuinely care about the animals & find more that do care than don't.

All the Best- Deb

 

[jayefbe]

I'm curious, northernregius, why parent to offspring breedings are ok but sib-sib breedings are not? The reason that linebreeding is looked down upon is due to highly similar genes. But full siblings share half of their genes with each other (on average) while offspring also share half of their genes with the parents. Basically, the probability of lethal recessive mutations showing up in a parent-offspring or sib-sib breeding should be exactly the same.

 

[Mokele]

Correct line breeding is parent to offspring. Sib to sib breeding is BAD... this is in the realm mammals & what's accepted as "proper". In rabbits you can line breed "3 deep" (momXson, then fatherXdaughter) before you need to out breed (go to unrelated animals). Why is line breeding done? to go for "type" as in the boxiness of the Black angus, the ears or wide head of Holland Lops... it can re-enforce favorable traits. When gone too far it also brings all the defects up to the surface... which is why there is that 3-deep rule for rabbits.

Actually, this is flat-out wrong - parent-offspring inbreeding is the *worst* possible type of inbreeding (short of self-fertilization). Why it's done in *any* system is beyond me. Perhaps the domesticated animals in these cases have simply already been inbred to the extent that theyre basically at the bottom of the genetic barrel anyway, much like most laboratory mice.

I do not know enough about the differences in herps to factually state what is safe & what is not.

The basic rules of genetics and inbreeding are the same for all animals that reproduce sexually. The only things in aware of that get around this are those that have truly bizarre genetic systems (such as the evening primrose, which has a single huge super-chromosome).

but when I go to breed Pewters back to those sires I want unrelated animals.

How unrelated are any two Pewters? Do all Pewters originate from a single mutant individual?

he reason that linebreeding is looked down upon is due to highly similar genes. But full siblings share half of their genes with each other (on average) while offspring also share half of their genes with the parents. Basically, the probability of lethal recessive mutations showing up in a parent-offspring or sib-sib breeding should be exactly the same.

Actually not quite - lethal or damaging mutations are twice as likely in parent-offspring pairings.

Here's how to evaluate any breeding system for inbreeding:

1) draw the breeding, just like a family tree, with arrows. So, with a parent-offspring inbreeding, you'd have two parents, joined by a T-shaped arrow to an offspring, then an arrow from one parent and one from the offspring to the resultant (F1.5?) offspring. You should have a triangle of arrows. If you do it for sib-sib, you should get a diamond of arrows.

2) Count the arrows. Let's call it N

3) Get a calculator and take 0.5 to the power of N. A parent-offspring breeding should give a value of 0.125 (0.5*0.5*0.5=0.125), while sib-sib should be 0.0625

4) Multiply by 100, giving the percent chance that any given offspring has 2 copies of a a single allele present in one of the two parents. So with a parent-offspring breeding, if one parent had a single allele for hemophilia (which would not express, as it's pure recessive), 12.5% of the offspring (1 in 8) would be a hemophiliac.



The important thing is that *all* animals are het. Your average vertebrate has about 20,000 genes, and the average individual has 5% genome-wide heterozygosity, so you can expect most individuals (including humans) to be het at about 1,000 genes. Most mutations are actually neutral, but even optimistically 5% of those would be damaging (deleterious), meaning each individual has 50 genetic diseases lurking in the recesses of their DNA.

So, for a parent-offspring inbreeding, there's a 12.5% chance of each of those 50 showing up, from each parent. So, statistically, each offspring should have about 12 expressed damaging mutations. And that's from non-inbred parents.

It's important to note that these 'damaging mutations' are not all lethal, or even major, and most are invisible, especially in animals which are properly kept in the luxury of captivity and with vet care. How would you know if a python had a 20% reduced lifespan, considering they can normally live to 50? Or reduced vision? Or a weak immune system (given that they get a vet checkup at the first sign of trouble)? Or even hemophilia?

Mokele

 

[jayefbe]

Mokele - Forgive me if I'm presuming, but your response seemed more than a little condescending. And I believe you're wrong. If you're assuming that I'm ignorant when it comes to biology, you would also be wrong.

Here's where I find an issue with your explanation. You say that there is a higher frequency of deleterious recessives being expressed in parent-offspring breedings than sib-sib breedings, BUT you are assuming that you know which parent is heterozygous for the recessive allele. You simply can not make that assumption. Instead, ASSUMING that there is only one deleterious recessive (which we both know is not the case) and only one parent is heterozygous at this locus, than you have to take into account every parent-breeding possibility. Not simply ignore the fact that the parent lacking the allele could be the one breeding with its offspring.

Considering that every individual has multiple deleterious recessive alleles, AND one can not determine which of the parents is a carrier for the gene, then the probability of a deleterious allele being expressed is a function of relatedness between individuals. The relatedness between parent and offspring is 0.5 while the relatedness between full siblings is also 0.5. The probability is exactly the same.

I see what you are trying to say, but you are ignoring the fact that full siblings will receive deleterious recessive alleles from BOTH of their parents.

 

[NorthernRegius.com]

Guys did I mention the guidelines I posted were from livestock practices.
They call "shared relatives" line-breeding & sib to sib in-breeding. I did not make the terms used and it's quite easy enough to google it. I'm a retired meteorologist not a biologist... what is interesting is that some rabbitries NOW contend the best way to lock favorable traits is sib-sib... a different view then when I was raising them.

It's pointless to argue that it's risky to do... for you'd be arguing with one who agrees with you. All sites that discuss the practice agree that one has to keep extremely detailed breeding records to track any negative traits that need to be out-crossed. This does not change the fact that the practice is done & on a widespread level.

The attempt is to lock in a good trait & minimize the risk of bad ones. In meat animals do you think they are worried about retardation? Of course not, they are worried about yield. In show animals, they breed for TYPE... again I do not agree we need to put our herps through this beyond what is initially done to prove a trait (aka morph) is genetic.

 

[NorthernRegius.com]

How unrelated are any two Pewters? Do all Pewters originate from a single mutant individual?
Mokele

To answer this is simple- there have been multiple lines of Pastels, Cinnys & Black Pastels... all proven and unrelated. So when I looked for unrelated Pewters for my stock it wasn't hard to find.

I have a Cinny Pewter produced by one breeder & a Black Pewter produced by another... their lines are unrelated to my stock. This is why you keep records on your animals, why you keep breeding records and why- when purchasing, I ask about the animal's history & bloodlines.

 

[Mokele]

Forgive me if I'm presuming, but your response seemed more than a little condescending. And I believe you're wrong. If you're assuming that I'm ignorant when it comes to biology, you would also be wrong.

I wasn't intending to be condescending, but rather to provide a sort of "how to" for anyone who reads this thread, to explain why inbreeding is a problem.

I've been meaning to write up some sort of "inbreeding FAQ" for a while, so I could just post the link, but I've been too busy.

You say that there is a higher frequency of deleterious recessives being expressed in parent-offspring breedings than sib-sib breedings, BUT you are assuming that you know which parent is heterozygous for the recessive allele. You simply can not make that assumption. Instead, ASSUMING that there is only one deleterious recessive (which we both know is not the case) and only one parent is heterozygous at this locus, than you have to take into account every parent-breeding possibility. Not simply ignore the fact that the parent lacking the allele could be the one breeding with its offspring.

That's actually a good point - So, accounting for that, sib-sib should be equal to parent-offspring, in terms of expressed recessive mutations.

Still, that's not exactly good.

Mokele

 

[Jerry_c_62]

Ok, I have been watching this thread with interest. I have also looked more into things like "hybrid vigor" and "inbred/outbred depression" than I ever thought I would need to. IYHO, how far removed should breeding stock be, to realisticly avoid serious genetic problems? Of course there will be room for debate on that, but what would be a good rule of thumb?

I'm sure I could continue looking into this and find an answer. Just thinking one of you may be able to save me alot of surfing time by letting me pick your brain. What say you?

 

[Mokele]

IYHO, how far removed should breeding stock be, to realisticly avoid serious genetic problems? Of course there will be room for debate on that, but what would be a good rule of thumb?

IMHO, about 3 generations or so, maybe 4 if you *really* want to be sure. By that point, the frequency of damage is about that of background mutation rates.

The fundamental problem is that all recessive genes behave alike. If you minimize the chance of passing on a damaging recessive gene like hemophilia, you also minimize the chances of passing on a desired recessive gene like albinism. Maximize the chances of getting albinos, maximize the chances of getting hemophiliacs.

 

[NorthernRegius.com]

IMHO, about 3 generations or so, maybe 4 if you *really* want to be sure. By that point, the frequency of damage is about that of background mutation rates.

The fundamental problem is that all recessive genes behave alike. If you minimize the chance of passing on a damaging recessive gene like hemophilia, you also minimize the chances of passing on a desired recessive gene like albinism. Maximize the chances of getting albinos, maximize the chances of getting hemophiliacs.

If the two are at the same locus, but as far as we know that's not the case. Breeding a healthy homozygous for albino snake is not going to produce a bleeder.

But I also agree that 3 generations out as a minimum is a good ROE to follow. You are right about harder to breed for type this way, but we're just going for the "paint job" which is way easier than what show or livestock breeders are going for.

 

[Jerry_c_62]

Three generations does assume a closed collection. New genetics from another source are not likely to fall into that "forbidden" pool, right?

 

[Mokele]

If the two are at the same locus, but as far as we know that's not the case. Breeding a healthy homozygous for albino snake is not going to produce a bleeder.

True, I was trying to work it via a crude metaphor - basically, a breeding program will maximize or minimize recessive expression, and will do so for all recessive genes available, good and bad.

And this is diverging a bit, but many of these traits are hidden, especially in captives. Let's say we have a morph, called Popular, and due to inbreeding, they all only live half as long. How long would it take to notice this, especially given that balls can live up to 50 years? Or what about reduced immune function, considering most snakes get quick vet treatment? "Healthy" is a very subjective term, and outside impressions can be misleading.

Three generations does assume a closed collection. New genetics from another source are not likely to fall into that "forbidden" pool, right?

Actually, I was assuming an open pool. If it's a closed gene pool of less than ~100 animals, it *will* implode, no matter what. That's actually the problem with Florida Panthers and Cheetahs - the populations are so low that genetic drift and inbreeding are dooming them. I've always been an advocate of a steady, low influx of WC animals for that reason - to keep new genes flowing into the captive populations.

Mokele

 

[NorthernRegius.com]

Three generations does assume a closed collection. New genetics from another source are not likely to fall into that "forbidden" pool, right?

You have to get new blood in if you're small like me, but say you like a certain breeder's Co-Dom stock. It's okay if they have common "greatgandparents" as long as they don't share other relatives closer in... But I'd just go for unrelated so I tend to work with different lines as much as possible.

True, I was trying to work it via a crude metaphor - basically, a breeding program will maximize or minimize recessive expression, and will do so for all recessive genes available, good and bad.

And this is diverging a bit, but many of these traits are hidden, especially in captives. Let's say we have a morph, called Popular, and due to inbreeding, they all only live half as long. How long would it take to notice this, especially given that balls can live up to 50 years? Or what about reduced immune function, considering most snakes get quick vet treatment? "Healthy" is a very subjective term, and outside impressions can be misleading. ...

Mokele

Snake breeding is new enough that we are still learning what's what. But to allude that recessive traits are likely bad is old-school thinking & not necessarily true. Blue eyes in humans is a recessive trait; studies have shown that it's can also be an advantagous one. Recent studies show blue eyed people have better night vision.

My snakes, except for 2 are CB. Our normal pet that started it all for us is a little CH boy who will never be bred. He was treated for internal parasites when we got him from our local pet store & later showed a spinal defect where the bone in one area failed to fully develop. We love this little guy's personality & he's a favorite when we have visitors. He's not for sale, he's our pet for life.

Do you really see only the negatives in keeping snakes? They get a fantastic life compared with their wild counterparts. As captive collections grow , the demand for collecting wild caught fades away. We have enough of a CB gene pool now to breed & keep these lovely animals well. I enjoy them & am intent on improving the species, and sharing my enjoyment with others. I just see way more good than bad here. A responsible keeper has the animal's best interests at heart & works to give it a good life.