Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hi guys... I just recently started breeding mice in my home and was wondering if it would in any way affect my snakes (ball python and a snow corn to have the mice living in the same room. My concern was that the constant smell of such tasty treats could make them more aggressive. If anyone has any info on the subject it would be appreciated. Thanks.

I've never had a problem. At different times of the year, I keep mice and rats in my garage along with some snakes and they do just fine. (snakes are usually inside the house) Most snakes seem to be interested in eating when they are hungry, not every time they smell a mouse/rat. Also, most snakes don't seem to want to even strike until they have their nose touching the mouse/rat and they have smelled that it is indeed food. Most snakes will not even overeat. I have tried to get some to eat two feed items at a time, and most will not. Thus, once they are fed, the smell of the other rodents seems to be irrelevant to them. If your snakes are very hungry, on the other hand, they may strike at anything that moves, regardless of whether mice/rats are present or not.

Rodney

I have seen the opposit true. But I had several hundred breeder mice and the stink ( no matter what you do you do have some smell floating around )did cause some unrestlessness in my snakes. I did this only as an expearment though. I don't make it a habit of keeping herps and mice in the same room. ! A very good reason is virusus. It is possible to have a virus in the mice that could cause problems for reptiles. The next problem is mites. I've had some slight problem with mites ( we determined they were what they call chicken mites ) on my mice several times but never on my reptiles. I was told by several vets that the chicken mites wouldn't cause problems to my reptiles but the treatment to iradicate the mites from the mice could. And as far as overeating....I have had it happen a lot in my 40 years of keeping snakes. Basically snakes gorge in the wild when they can and i've never seen a difference in captivity if given the chance to. One has to rmeember that we as keepers , control what we feed our keeps. It's not a random choice to the snakes. Right ?

Chambo

While there are a lot of variables (temps. type of snake, hunger level of the snake, etc.), I would have to disagree with a number of things you have said.

First, while very hungry snakes will gorge themselves, I have found it very difficult to get any of my snakes to eat more than one item at a time (unless the items are very small, then they will, or unless the snakes are very hungry). After eating one appropriate sized item, or two small items, that's all mine will eat.

Second, mites are very species specific and any mite that infects a mammal will not infect a reptile. In fact, snake mites will note even infect a lizard and lizard mites will not infect snakes. Considering how similar snakes and lizards are (both reptiles) this is pretty amazing. There are even species of bird mites that only infect a couple of species of birds, and don't bother the other species! (some mites will attack what is normally not their host in an attempt to survive, but most won't live long doing this). Also, there are tons of types of mites out there, dust mites, bird mites, reptile, mammalian mites, mites that attack specific plants, mites that eat skin (dust mites) blood sucking mites, etc. It's a very good thing for us that they are so species specific!

Second, the vast majority of viruses are also very species specific. Each strain of virus requires a certain DNA to infect in order for it change the animals cell function to produce that virus. If that DNA isn't present, the virus can't reproduce. A mammalian viruses that could infect a reptile would be extremely rare, if any actually exist at all. (out of the millions of strains of virus out there).

I must admit, I am confused by the new avian flu virus that is in the news. Apparently it is one of the very rare ones that can infect 2 substantially different DNA molecules. Maybe there is a specific part of the DNA chain that is exactly the same in humans and chickens? Maybe this virus only needs a very short part of that chain to infect, so it is easier for it to find a compatible area in the DNA to cross the species barrier? (I predict, that in the future, it will be found to not be a virus at all, but some type of intracellular parasite. (these have been confused with viruses in the past.)

I also suspect, but don't have any evidence of, snakes will get used to smells like we do. For instance, ever notice how a smelly room is no longer smelly after you have been in it for some time? If you leave for a while and come back, you can then smell it again. This appears to be a survival skill. It seems to be more important to be able to smell changes in scents, than it is to smell the actual scents. It's more important to be able to smell a fresh scent, than an old, one when finding food. Just because most of the rodent smells in your room will be fresh, doesn't mean the snakes don't get used to them and then ignore them. With all the available smells in nature, imagine how hard it would be to track something by smell, if you could smell everying else that is out there and not filter any other smells out.

Rodney

Good god rodney - do you EVER pick up a newspaper or listen to anything other than your right wing radio tripe?

Have you never heard of SARS or AIDS?

Yes, but again, AIDs is believed to be a mutated virus from a simian-just like I stated (due to it's similar DNA, this cross species infection possibility becomes more possible). And being able to name about 4 known viruses that cross species lines out of the millions of viruses out there makes that a rare case, in my opinion.

The chance that a specific virus, that may or may not be present in a specific person's rodent colony, could mutate in that specific person's reptile room, to the point that it could infect another specific type of animal, is unbelievably unlikey. If you had millions of people keeping snakes and rodents in the same room, it would increase your chances of a virus being able to mutate to the point where it could live in another animal by one million times, but it still would be unbelievably unlikely.

I have read a number of veterinarian manuals on viruses, have you? There are 17 known families of viruses that infect birds alone! And most can only infect one (or a couple) of different genus of birds. If those viruses have so much trouble crossing a genus line, how can you expect a virus to not only cross a genus line, but also cross the family, order, class and phylum line all at the same time, and within one specific room? (remember, DNA is needed for viruses to "reproduce". The only further jump possible, would be for the virus to jump kingdoms and have animal viruses directly infect plants--again, more nonsense from you. (The next time I get a cold, I'll be carful not to sneeze outside and kill my lawn!-LOL) There are many "species" of viruses in each family and probably thousands of strains within each "species". Then there viruses that affect mammals, fish, reptiles, insects, etc.--get the picture. Millions of viruses, each with their onw niche, and about 4 that are largely assumed to infect man from other animals. Even SARS is believed, not know to be from a cat. At least man and cat are both mammals!

Good God pulatus, have you ever picked up a book on statistics or a dictionary to look up the work rare!

Rodney

Rodney said: "I must admit, I am confused by the new avian flu virus that is in the news. Apparently it is one of the very rare ones that can infect 2 substantially different DNA molecules."

The info about avian flu has been all over the news for weeks. It, like SARS and AIDS appears to have jumped species. You obvioulsy didn't think of that, or know of it, when you posted the above.

Which led me to exclaim: Do you EVER read?

Hey - did you ever tell me where you got your computer science degree and when?

debate , and I'm talking about LOOONNNG debate and arguments threads. In my post I said the mites was not so much the problem as to the treatment of eradicating the mites from the mice when keeping mice in the same room with snakes. I failed to mention that while my vet said the chicken mites wouldn't cause problems as to being transferred to the snakes ( skin wise or body wise ) it WAS his opinion that the little blood sucking varmits is robbing the mice maybe in nutritional needs when feeding the mice to the snakes. And I have read the other post on the viruses being transmitted to snakes in the same room from mice to snakes. ARE you sure that this can't happen ? While I'm not at a point to discuss if any virus can jump from a mammal/bird to a reptile/ to humans, having a daughter just attending college, a required reading is " The HOT Zone " about the ebola virus that no one can exactly explain obsulutly where it started from and from what species it might of oringinated in. There is mentioning that the thought of region that it first showed up in ( a cave possibily ) there are reptiles among other animals. I'm not current on anything else after reading this book though.
It is still my opinion , and I will stand by this, that reptiles ( snakes ) shouldn't be in the same room as a bunch of mice ! PERIOD ! And i'm giving you all a benifit of over 40 years of keeping/breeding reptiles and 20 years of breeding mice. All of my reptile buds don't practice this either and one just so happens to be a BIG breeder of mice in the midwest and farely well known.

OOPS ! I have now joined the ranks of one of you LOOONNNNG debaters on threads. Sorry...

Chambo

I'm working on my taxes and don't have time for a loooooonnnggg reply right now, or any replies to other posts--I'll get to you pulatus! (tax return is due tomorrow)

First, you are absolutely correct keeping snakes and mice in the same room will make it more difficult to eradicate mites in that room. But not by much, depending on your treatment method. (If mites are a problem for you, I'd recommend using garden dust (seven dust/anything with carobyl in it) you can sprinkle a little 1/2 teaspoon) in each mouse colony each time you clean and in a couple weeks, no mites. This can also be used with your snakes (about 1/4 teaspoon per cage sprinkled on the substrait)--just change water frequently so any transfer of the chemical into the snakes water isn't ingested. Also, sprinkle a little around on the ground, shelves, etc. so mites can't walk places.

I raise all my own feeders so I neverhave to buy any to reduce the possibility of mites. (I'm always worried about bringing some home on my clothes when making deliveries to reptile shops, but it hasn't happened yet.) Haven't had one in about 5 years(the last time I bought something at a reptile expo.)

If your snakes don't have mites already, and you don't buy any feeders, this (keeping in the same room) will not be a problem. If you buy feeders, (and keep snakes and mice separately) this becomes irrelevant because you can still get them when you feed.--or from transfer while traveling on your body. eeewww!

Yes, it is possible for viruses to infect two different types of animals, but it is extremely rare. And far more rare when you are considering that you are talking about one specific collection (that you don't even know has a virus problem to start with) and having a specific virus mutate on your premises, and not everyone's collections collectively. It is far less of a concern than being worried that you will be hit by lightning.

If this was such a big concern, wouldn't you be a lot more worried about your snakes getting something from the mice when they are EATING them? Wouldn't you hear about snakes dying all the time from viral infections from their food in the various reptile press? Wouldn't snakes be becoming extinct in the wild from this considering how disease free domestic mice are compared to wild prey items? And considering how frequently snakes would come into close proximity to mice in the wild?(considering all the possible disease vectors, etc.) Oops, it got a little long, Sorry. Back to taxes!

Rodney

Yes, I read all the time! And I did answer your question where you asked it.

Do you ever read? Go back and read my post again. I purposely used the word rare and not never for this exact reason. I figured someone like you would misread it. I frequently use bold fonts, to emphasize certain words, so you won't get so confused. You frequently misread my posts and then get all upset by my use of words. Then I have to keep showing you proof of my statements, define words for you, etc. so you don't mislead the world.

Rodney

Concerning my unanswered questions below. Do you just ignore questions when someone finally pins you down? I'll admit, you squirmed and twisted and did your absolute best to provide illogical responses to simple questions.

I'll summerize and ask the question once again. If you don't want to provide an answer, thats fine.

Here's the story: You made a statement that the "vast majority of scientists don't even believe global warming exists"

When called on this the only evidence you could come up with was a couple of petitions. You seemed to think that we could extrapolate the results of these petitions to the larger scientific community, ie. that these petitions deployed statistically valid sampling techniques.

Is this your position? That the 2 surveys are statistically valid samples of the entire scientific community? And because they are, they support your initial statement?

Just a reminder - when you see these sorts of "surveys" on TV, aren't they always accompanied by a disclaimer; "This is not a scientific survey"? If your petitions are statistically significant and valid samples of the larger scientific community, can you explain why you believe they are?

Joe

I've been waiting for you to "try and pin me down" for some time.. I disprove statement after statement of yours, (like how could you possibly know what scientists are thinking) and then you change the subject, and you claim I didn't answer something to your satisfaction? Pretty HYPOCRITICAL don't you think? Considering you have never answered any of my questions as far as I can find.

Here's the story: You made a statement that the "vast majority of scientists don't even believe global warming exists"

When called on this the only evidence you could come up with was a couple of petitions. You seemed to think that we could extrapolate the results of these petitions to the larger scientific community, ie. that these petitions deployed statistically valid sampling techniques.

First of all, that is not true. I provided you with a petition of scientists that believe in global warming and a counter petition of scientist that were angry that this first petition existed--due to the lack of evidence. A petition, and a counter to it, is far more accurate than just one petition, to show trends/common thinking. currently 2,000 to 19,000--- which means most in my book.

Second, I provided you with 2 polls, in addition to this, of climatologists that said the same thing, not just one petition to back up my claim -like you claim.

Here's yet another one.

A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions -- principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of all climate measurements, shows no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

Is this your position? That the 2 surveys are statistically valid samples of the entire scientific community? And because they are, they support your initial statement?

No, it is my position that while any poll or petition has flaws because of random sampling errors, when the many polls I have found all agree, and when the results are so heavily weighted to support my statement, "most" would then be a very accurate term to use. And when those polls also agree with the petition numbers, it is even more accurate. If I had found any polls that indicated opposite numbers, or if the percentages were close, or if I had only one poll, I would agree with you that it was a bit strong to say "most." Margin of error/scientific sampling, etc. become less and less important when taking these things into consideration.

It is also my position that most scientists aren't so stupid as to overlook all the evidence that contradicts global warming. It is my position that most environmental scientists are smart enough to not make such a rediculous claim with all the overwhelming data against global warming.--Especially after claiming we were entering an ice age, just a few decades ago, and that wasn't true either.

Which gets back to my original point. Global warming is not a fact and it sould not be represented, in the news, as such! It is a theory with many, many flaws--nothing more or less. Yet, it is very rare for the news to ever call it the "theory" of global warming.

Interestingly, public opinion polls are just about the opposite of the polls of the scientific community. Think this could be because of the news constantly referring to global warming as fact?-another one of my original points. Liberal bias of the media forming the publics opinon on things.

With all the flaws that I have pointed out in other posts (primarily the fact that 3/4 of the warming in the past 150 years occured prior to 1940 (prior to massive pollution) and only 1/4 occured since then (our peak pollution production) and that in the past 20 years we have been cooling) Why do you think most scientist would be so stupid as to believe in global warming?

It is probably even desireable (if it is occuring) compared to any cooling.--considering crop growing cycles, how people like to live/vaction where it is warmer, the real dangers of an ice age, etc.

And that doesn't even touch on the question, "Could we even do anything to reduce it anyway?" If it is going to increase by 1 degree in the next 100 years, should we spend many trillions of dollars to make it go up by .09 degrees instead? Why aren't dirtier coutries like China bound by the Kyoto accord? Think it is so they can compete with us better? (More expensive energy here and less expensive there). Think the UN wants to collect fines from the U.S.? If we do eveything we can, and countries like China don't, will it make any difference? Maybe by letting us compete better in the world market, China will then produce less goods, and thus less total polution worldwide, and that will be better for global warming (if it exists)?

Rodney

OK. SO you admit that the 2 polls you were using as supporting evidence for your initial statement are not, in fact, random samples and they do not, therefore, validate your initial assertion that "most scientists don't even believe global warming is happening"?

Please just answer the question, don't add a lot of other stuff just yet!

Yes, I will admit that that sampling (the 2 petitions) isn't a 100% accurate scientific representation of total scientists. Can you admit that 19,000 is so much more than 2,000, that even if it was way, way off, that it would still indicate most?

Can you also admit that with a huge margin like that, and with multiple polls of environmental scientists (which are more accurate, and also have a huge margin) which also corroborate that point, it is extremely likely that what I said is accurate? (nothing is 100% in the world of statistics, just very, very, close to 100%)

Rodney

Well thank god. Now let me ask you a couple questions and scold you a little bit.

You knew, even when you first posted it, that these 2 polls did not accurately represent the scientific community - but when I challenged your assertion that the "vast majority of scientists don't even believe global warming is happening" you used these 2 surveys as valid evidence.

And you stuck with it. You not only had no real evidence for your assertion, but when you offered this flacid evidence you insisted - through all sorts of illogical gyrations - that it WAS somehow valid. Now, finally, you admit you were wrong.

But why did you assert this as evidence initially? And why did you stand by it for so long? Are you so, almost pathologically, averse to admitting you are wrong? I assure you, anyone reading this thread realized you were wrong a long time ago - and I think you did too. Why couldn't you admit it?

I don't mind debating these topics with you, but I certainly don't have time to chase you down and corner you whenever you make these utterly absurd assertions. I spent way too much time here just trying to prove a point - that when cornered you have no choice but to admit your wrong - why should I do that?

Your behavior here strikes me to be that of a peson with a problem. I'm not sure what it is, but it certainly manifests itself as an utter refusal to admit when you are wrong. In fact, its obvious in this and other threads that you will resort to all sorts of fabrications in order to avoid admitting your wrong.

I don't want to spend my time (waste my time) trying to talk to someone who doesn't respect the truth. You've been willing to lie here in order to protect your absurd assertions - I have better things to do then to entertain your psychosis.

BYE!

Where did I say that I was wrong?--I never said that. You are having problems again because you are using Clinton's ridiculous argument that "It depends on what your definition of is is", or you can't read. Read my words, and don't change the meaning of the words.

There is a huge difference between being 99.9999% sure you are correct about something, and saying that you are wrong.

There isn't a poll that has ever been done (except for when the entire country votes on something) that could be called 100% accurate--and even that could be questioned due to mistakes by the voters. Yet, the vast majority of polls are very close to what the public thinks.

I said that these petitions which were 10 to 1 against global warming, corroborates what I said.

I also said that I looked into it and found numerous polls of environmental scientists, by various groups, that also all confirmed it by such a huge margin that it was almost impossible for what I said to be wrong.

When you have such huge margins, and numerous polls that all say the same thing, worrying about it being a scientific poll becomes irrelevant, just as margin of error becomes irrelevant when your poll size increases.

Ever seen a poll where they said the margin of error of these results is 35%? I haven't! Who would even mention a poll that inaccurate? It's usually in the 2-4% range.

I also said that all the claims by environmental groups didn't have any numbers to try and support their ridiculous claims that there is a consensus of scientists that support global warming--which is absolutely false is wrong.

As it is wrong to talk about global warming as fact on the news when it is a flawed theory at best.

I have never wavered in what I said. I guess you consider 99.9999% sure that I am right as meaning the exact same thing as 100% sure I am wrong? And you think I have a problem?---Yikes!!

I don't mind debating you either, but I do mind when anyone (environmental groups, the news, liberals, conservatives, etc.) tries to spin things and influence people's opinion with rhetoric. I also mind when people won't look at the facts.

(Again, I don't really care if there is a consensus or not-that proves nothing.--But I do mind when people call global warming a fact when it is not, just as I mind people claiming there is a consensus of scientists that support global warming, when there is not.)

Rodney

Like I said rod - you've got a problem.

Yep!

I can read (without changing the definitions of the words), I can answer questions, and I prefer facts over rhetoric and alarmist opinions! I guess that could be considered a problem to some, but not to me!

Frankly, I think you have a problem. I'm still waiting for you explain why you think most scientists are so stupid as to ignore all the facts that disprove the global warming theory. I'm also waiting for a reply to any of my other questions that you won't answer. (I'm not sure if you realize that an honest answer will make global warming look like nonsense, a dishonest answer will make you look like a fool, or if you can't answer them at all.)

It's a shame that I answer all your questions and you won't answer any of mine. I've seen this debate tactic many times and it always makes the person who won't answer anything look foolish.- which is one reason why I won't use it--the other reason is because it isn't polite. You have jumped on me many times because you didn't like my answer, or because I missed one of many question of yours, yet you don't have the decency to answer anything! I'm also wondering how you can be so hypocritical as to say things like, "You are avoiding a question." when you won't answer anything? Was that something you learned from listening to the democratic presidential nominees, that all of the sudden, now oppose the war in Iraq?

I guess I also have more faith in the intelligence of the scientific community than you do.

Rodney

I'm sorry. I thought you admitted (in a moment of clarity) that your 2 surveys were not valid samples of the scientific community. For a minute I thought you might actually be able to pull yourself back from the brink of insanity and carry on a discussion. Apparently not.

Sorry.

Wow, a moment of clarity from you! I'm shocked!

Not a valid survey, and not a valid result are not the same thing. That's why I found multiple sources and multiple polls-to greatly reduce the possibility of a "not valid" result.

If you poll a group, as randomly as possible (regardless of how random the sample is factually), and get huge percentage differences, you can say that the term "most" is accurate with a high degree of accuracy. If multiple polls also confirm this, then it becomes a very high degree of accuracy, because it is extremely hard for things to be so far off, in every poll, as to make it not a majority, or "most" as I said.

Again, if the results of these polls were anywhere near to being close, you could have a case as to the results being not valid, due to questionable sample randomness.

Rodney

"Not a valid survey, and not a valid result are not the same thing."

One of the best "rodney-isms" I've read for a while!

So you can have an invalid survey and get a valid result? How would you know your survey result was valid if your survey itself was not? I thought survey were supposed to provie you with valid results?

Were your 2 petitions examples of valid random surveys?
But your gonna stick by your assertion aren't you? Even though you know its silly. Your an amazing guy. And a college graduate huh?

It doesn't matter if actual random surveys support your assertion or not. I'm trying to get you to state that your 2 surveys do not constitute valid random samplings.

Its obvious to any 4th grader that they are not, why is it so hard for you to admit it?

Perhaps you still don't understand. "Most" is the result you are looking for. In order for the result, "most", to still be accurate, the randomness of the sample does not need to be totally random.--though that would be nice if it were possible!

For instance:

Let's assume no margin of error, just for demonstrations sake. Can't you understand that if there is a random sampling error of 5%, and your results are 75% pro and 25% con, that even then, while the actual populations percentages will be anywhere from 70% to 80% pro and 20% to 30% con, then "most" is still an accurate term even though the poll's randomness is inaccurate by 5%?--Thus, you still achieve an accurate result of "most" from a 5% inaccurate random sampling. A worse case scenario in this example is still "most".

Can't you understand, that with polls of a sample size of 400, it would be almost impossible to achieve a random sampling error rate plus a margin of error rate, high enough for "most" to not be accurate, given how heavily weighted the results are? -And how hard it would be for the other polls that concur with these results, to also be inaccurate.

Even a 2nd grader should understand that!

And thanks for the compliment, a lot of people have called me an amazing guy.---Though most weren't saying it sarcastically.

Rodney

rodney says:

"Let's assume no margin of error, just for demonstrations sake. Can't you understand that if there is a random sampling error of 5%, and your results are 75% pro and 25% con, that even ..."

Thats pretty funny rodney - first you say lets assume no margin of error, then you say there is a random sampling error of 5% - which is it? Huh? Are you confused? It would certainly seem so!

That fact is, you don;t know what the random sampling error is because these petitions you keep defending are not random samples. Thats pretty simple to understand, isn't it?

Sounds like the university degree didn't include a course in logic, huh?

Pulatus says Thats pretty funny rodney - first you say lets assume no margin of error, then you say there is a random sampling error of 5% - which is it? Huh? Are you confused? It would certainly seem so!

Sounds to me like you are confused again. Still having trouble with English as a second language are we? I was using "lets assume no margin of error" because I though it would be simpler for you to understand if there were fewer terms to consider.

Here's a quick statistics lesson for you.

Here it is---margin of error is based only on sample size--nothing else. The larger your sample, the smaller your margin of error. The smaller the sample size, the larger your margin of error.

Errors from some type of bias, due to non-randomness of the samples (like you are implying is the case with these polls), is a totally separate problem. You would need to add your margin of error to your random sampling error, and use the combination of the two as a total error rate, represented as "plus or minus" your results from the poll.

That fact is, you don;t know what the random sampling error is because these petitions you keep defending are not random samples. Thats pretty simple to understand, isn't it?

Sure it is. It's even easier to understand that with multiple polls, from different sources, and all of them saying the same thing, that it is very unlikely that random sampling errors are anything close to being significant. Certainly not significant enough to make "most" an inaccurate term to use anyway. That's pretty simple to understand, isn't it? Well, it is for me anyway! But then again, I always loved math and statistics.

Rodney

Actually as far as feeding aggession goes it is almost an individual species thing. Higher metabolism "Visual" hunters tend to be more stimulated by the rodents near them. The problem with rodents and snakes together (as explained o me by my local F&G inspector is the amonia that rodents produce in their waste which is a lung irritant.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

HI Frank,

I'd agree with that except for one minor point.

I was talking to a bedding supplier of mine. Apparently, (according to what he was told by a chemist friend of his) it is primarily the urine interacting with the cellulose in the bedding that produces the ammonia, not the urine itself. That is how they came up with the "cell sorb plus" product. By adding lime/gypsum, I believe it was, to a paper product, the ammonia producing reaction doesn't occur until all the lime is used up in another chemical reaction. Once the lime is used up, ammonia returns to the equation. This bedding lasts about 3 times longer than similar paper products before any ammonia is smelled, so I assume they are right. Unfortunately, this product is heavy and expensive, but it is all I use due to the reduced labor involved and the reduced garbage produced.

I'm not sure if I believe that myself though, just assuming it is true. If you had rodents on kitty liter (clay not cellulose) for instance, I think it would still produce ammonia. But then again, it could be the undigested cellulose in the rodents droppings producing the ammonia, or a minor production of amonia instead of the major "cellulose" one.

I have also noticed that different wood products produce different smells as they age. Sani-chips, for instance, (a very small aspen chip) smells kind of like popcorn as it gets soiled and it last much longer than pine. It seems to be very dry/clean until it hits a saturation point, and then it becomes a swamp. Pine is the cheapest, but it seems to "ammonia" the quickest.

Rodney

See...Now that's what I get for posting the short version (lol).
Rodent stink in flavors! If it's spring...it must be aspen! for summer we will do the cedar....Sorry couldn't resist...Interesting.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."