To summarize the preceding post: there are two issues, as I see it, to the "bonding" discussion. Part 1--avoiding cannibalism--is discussed above.



The second part is:



2) Increased breeding response, as dave reports above, if pairs are "bonded" and housed together. (DISCUSSED IN NEXT POST)



Again, if anecdotal evidence shows this increases the effectiveness of breeding (or minimizes the number of cages to house a breeding collection) then it should be tested further.



My problem with this part of the potential benefits is that I've seen Hondurans, nelsoni, getula so eager to breed with multiple mates, and with mates only minutes after they're introduced for the first time, that it's hard for me to imagine how my animals could have produced more, or bigger, or healthier offspring than they did. Fertility was very high. Hatch rates were very high. What is there to be improved upon? If only half my kings or milks bred in a given year, I'd be singing a different song and signing up to try every new technique proposed, but that's not the case.



But (as is the case in part 1, above) for locality breeders willing to take a chance that one animal might eat the other, then let them test it. I just hope the findings are reported with scientific rigor. But if our snakes are already breeding "to capacity"--that is, if getting two kings or milks to breed is not viewed as a difficult challenge-then the benefit of the bonding technique would appear to be that it makes the keeper's life easier by halving the number of cages necessary. What's wrong with that?

[ Show Entire Thread ]