I’ve got a lot going on brother, and you are admittedly pretty low on my radar. I feel similarly about your perspective and I’ve noticed it on a number of issues in this forum. I think your response is a bit rude, you could just share your experience, or quote yourself if you’ve already stated it. While I commend your underlying motive to put the health of animals at top priority, I do as well, I think your stance is weak, illogical, and poorly stated. We’ll just have to agree to disagree again on this one man, I’d prefer to avoid any further heated debate.
2 Likes
I don’t believe it’s rude to ask you to provide the same burden of proof you ask others to. That’s not being rude that’s being fair and the only way to have a productive discussion .You always bring up your side but don’t want to hear others also not fair and counter productive. Since when is disagreeing and asking the same questions rude? Isn’t honest and fair discussion the point of a forum based community? People disagree with me on here all the time I don’t believe they are being rude or dislike me just don’t agree with me.
And I totally understand that but you say you have never heard that like ever and I’ve told you multiple times. So can’t really be never.
Can confirm. We have had many discussions on the forums where we disagreed, while i cant say i remember the topic of every single one, i can say that you never took offense to me disagreeing, nor did you come out and attack me. Yes, you dont sugar coat your words, and it can come off as cold, but that is not the same thing as being rude, it is just having a discussion from a purely logic based standpoint and cutting out the fluff.
1 Like
First you said my perspective is dishonest. Instead of disagreeing respectfully you chose to attack me personally. Claiming someone is being dishonest is different than saying they are wrong and you disagree. I still chose to respond respectfully. Then you said I don’t listen to opposing viewpoints. Both are untrue, I am not dishonest and I am open to opposing viewpoints.
It’s kind of weird if you have stated your experience multiple times that you refuse to quote it or restate it again but fair enough.
Intellectually dishonest yes because your asking someone to provide evidence to prove there point but you yourself refuse to. That is the very definition of intellectually dishonest.
By and large the females I have bred on the small size have given me smaller clutches, more slugs, and reach and generally smaller adult size. All based on my experiences. Only egg bound female I ever lost was 1200 grams and 13 months old. I have produced ball pythons the last 9 years and have produced probably about 300. I’ve lost 4 males breeding them under 800 grams and they literally never ate again. Not proud of either but did this in the past. Never lost a male that I allowed to get over 800 before breeding.
1 Like
Just a quick note, is it possible that the issue isnt so much breeding early, but rather the amount of feeding needed to get a female up to weight in 18 months? I know there are well known health risks assosiated with power feeding, and wonder if this may play a factor.
1 Like
Definitely feel that maybe a possibility but either way I don’t believe it’s healthy or in the best interest of the animal this is my opinion based on my experiences have no scientific evidence to back it up.
2 Likes
I literally shared a direct experience of my own. I never refused to share any information I have based upon direct or indirect experience.
If someone says “Dont do it! There’s risk involved!” it reasonably holds no weight if there is no data to back it up.
That is extremely early. To even get a ball python up to a size where they have ovulated at 13 months would require an overly aggressive feeding schedule, so I would take that particular example with a grain of salt.
I would expect smaller and younger females to have smaller clutches.
You’ve produced much more than I have currently but I have 7 clutches down and I’ve yet to produce a single slug. Ironically the older females I have bred produced smaller clutches with less viable eggs than the younger ones, but I seriously doubt that will be the case as my numbers grow.
All my males have bred at sub 800 grams, some sub 500, and all have thrived. Given the contrast in our experiences with slugs, male loss, etc. I would suspect there are other factors at play. Your numbers being much higher, nearly 6x what I’ve produced, could indicate over time my experiences will more closely mirror yours but I doubt it. I appreciate you sharing your experience.
1 Like
But when I/others share mine/there’s you say there’s nothing to back it up. Well there’s nothing to back yours up either. Please just answer me how that is fair and I will bow out.
Or I could use the argument that’s since I have produced more than you my opinion matters more than yours which is the other point you bring up by always stating “big breeders” say this and stay that and they produce the most would it be fair of me to dismiss your experiences?
You absolutely refuse to answer these two questions which makes it impossible to have a discussion.
I have changed my stance on multiple things because Im listening to others opinions and experiences. So I’m always willing to listen and learn and grow I believe that’s why we are all here.
I think a big part of whether or not breeding a female “early” adds risk may be driven by their feeding schedule and the particular genetics of that animal.
The example I have happened to be a very robust female. She was never pushed, unless you consider once per week feeding of appropriate sized meals with occasional skips of 2 weeks “pushed” but that wouldn’t traditionally be considered “pushed”. She grew fast, had 4 locks monthly, and produced a healthy clutch right around her 2nd birthday.
I think it stands to reason that some females in particular grow faster, rebound quicker, and can be bred “earlier” with likely no increase in risk.
I think Verinium is correct regarding the health effects of over feeding and how that plays a role.
I didn’t recall you sharing that information prior, I apologized for forgetting about that if you indeed did.
1 Like
I would personally. I used to feed that type of schedule and have noticed a big increase in the general health of my snakes feeding less. Traditionally doesn’t always mean right I used to believe f-10 fogging was ok for treating respiratory because it was considered traditionally accepted. I have since come to know better by keeping an open mind listening to others and considering I maybe wrong about something.
1 Like
This would make alot of sense based on the various anecdotal experiences. If you provide opportunity to feed, and are watching the body proportions of the animal and ensuring not to overfeed, then i believe its perfectly feasible to have a healthy and of weight female before a set deadline, just like you see in people, growth rates do differ, so i could see some animals being able to handle such things.
That being said, if that is the case I certainly wouldnt want to set an expectation of it will ALWAYS be OK. If you are experienced and careful, i can accept it can be done while mitigating health risks. But i would hate for an expectation to cause people to try and get their females weights up figuring as soon as it gets there, they are good to go, while much of that weight is fat, and the internals have not yet caught up.
The 2-3 year rule + weight is a good universal rule to ensure both fat reserves and organs are up to par, i believe if it were lowered to 12-18 months, many inexperienced up and coming breeders would feel rushed to get their weight up by then.
3 Likes
This is a very unfortunate reality. I’m very comfortable making the assumption that large-scale, well-known breeders have MANY more issues than the public ever finds out about. And smaller breeders are even more loathe to publicize issues, because if you don’t have a name to back you up, bullying can run people straight out of this hobby. So as a result of this, empirical evidence regarding the true statistics of complications when breeding females early are nearly impossible to come by.
Also, it’s worth noting that the standard in the hobby has been 2-3 years and 1200-1500g for many years. Presumably, someone came up with that number originally, and presumably there was a reason for it - quite possibly that there HAD been noticed complications when females bred earlier.
6 Likes
This is extremely true. I mean, it simple logic even if theres no bullying. Do you buy from a no name breeder who shares how they harm their animal by accident? Or who shares that they actively power feed, or had a issue with mites or disease. Or, do you buy from a well establishe breeder that has none of these problems.
Most people will buy from the established breeder, very few would give the little guy the benefit of the doubt that health concerns, and messing up on occasion is part of the process. Obviously some people are just downright negligent, so im not saying to support people who share problems just for the sake of supporting them, but at least recognize that while big names dont talk about it, with the size of their collection, there is no way there are no problems, they just dont publicize it because it would be pretty frequent and look bad compared to other big breeders.
4 Likes
It’s also worth noting that feeding the traditional once a week you will get to 1200 to 1500 way faster. So the traditional feeding schedule doesn’t match up the traditional 1200 to 1500 at two to three years. So the traditional Contradicts itself here.
3 Likes
Fair, and for this reason i argue that the traditional feeding schedule is just a guideline. Why do adults eat once a month and young eat once a week, at what point do you cut their feedings to 1/4. I believe javing a schedule and watching body composition will have a far healthier animal than just following a set schedule. Generalizations are good for some things to give a basic idea, but often times shouldnt be taken as gospel if you see it isnt working as intended.
3 Likes
Was feeding every 5 to 7 usually once a week. While I consider that to often now I wouldn’t consider that overly aggressive compared to the every 3 to 4 days for hatchlings people will recommend.
1 Like
You’re right about it being contradictory, which is why I decided to go solely based on age. If I’m not breeding until age three regardless of follicles and weight, there’s absolutely no rush to get females up to “size” sooner. Most of my juveniles and subadult females eat every 9-12 days.
3 Likes
Hatchlings i do once a week, juvys i alternate once a week / once per two weeks depending on if they look like they are putting on too much fat. My adults i feed once a week, however, they are on ASFs, so they arent getting overfed, just fed more often (i.e. my juvys get the same size meal as adults. My adults get 1 asf a week, if they appear hungry and their body size looks Ok, i will ocassionally give 2)
Note: this isnt a recommendation, just stating my own schedule to share information 
1 Like