It's the classic law of supply and demand....and the drive to get the most financially profitable situation.



If you were going to produce pieds and hets for sale your best bet would be a pied male and several het females. The cost to profit ratio would be the most ideal with this setup.



Let's say the price on the male was $4000 and the price on the females ( 2 of them) was $3000. For 7k you can produce on average 12 eggs per season with 6 being pieds and 6 being 100%hets....and for the low low price of just 1500 more dollars (or holding back het females) you could make even more "sure thing" 100% hets and pieds because your male could breed multiple females. Your options become limited if you are attempting to breed with a homozygous female (unless it's just your bag and that's what you want to do...or better yet if you are doing crosses and not going for hets and homozygous offspring)



Typically females are more expensive when they are needed to create the "homozygous" or "super" form for recessive and codominant genetics ("hets". Typically males are more expensive in dominant and homozygous animals.



This is why female spiders are cheaper than males and typically why females are more expensive than males in hets. I believe that once a recessive morph has turned into an element used for alot of "crosses" then the female homozygous form ends up being more expensive than the males..(a good example is ghosts)..but up until that point males "might" be more expensive, or they "might" have the same pricing male to female.



Overall...you want lots of females and only a few males due to the ability to breed one male to multiple females. So to save money your "expensive" morphs are typically the males and the "cheaper" morphs are the females. So the demand is highest for females in codoms and popularly crossible recessives. And the demand is highest for the popular homozygous and supers for males.



Just my opinion

Thanks!



just my opinion.

[ Hide Replies ]

• Piebald genetics - pichereptiles, Sat Jul 22 10:22:20 2006
• RE: Piebald genetics - jpman78, Sat Jul 22 10:44:16 2006
• RE: Piebald genetics - Pfan151, Sat Jul 22 15:23:23 2006