Morality of breeding - What bugs should you feed most

[saradoggy10]

Hello!
This is a discussion post. Please kindly allow all opinions to be heard.
The two questions I present today to avoid having two forums are the following:

1.What is your opinion on selective breeding within one species (i.e. two nosy be panthers)? At what point does it get too far?
2.What bugs would you keep on hand at all times through sustainable keeping? Let's say you have two bug terrariums. Which bugs would you breed for your chameleons to snack on?

 

[saradoggy10]

Personally I would consider selectively breeding for a less stressed chameleon that is not as susceptible to calcium deficiencies.
As for bugs I would probably breed crickets and silkworms.
Any counter arguments?

 

[kinyonga]

How do you breed a chameleon so it's less susceptible to calcium deficiencies?

 

[Grayson Payne]

How do you breed a chameleon so it's less susceptible to calcium deficiencies?

Wondering the same thing...

 

[saradoggy10]

Selective breeding. Choosing those with stronger bones and breeding them. The testing to determine if they are less susceptible would be up to debate and would take quite a bit of thought to do it without purposefully giving a calcium deficiency.
It would be quite the feat but it could be done.
Should it, though?

 

[Grayson Payne]

Personally, I’d do silkworms and dubia roaches. If you chameleon doesn’t eat them, I’d go for hornworms as they’re on the more expensive side. Crickets are cheap and smell pretty bad so I’d just stick with one of those two. Just my two cents!

 

[kinyonga]

You migbt be able to select for strong bones...but unless you raise them with a nutritious balanced diet with proper levels of D3, vitamin A, phos and calcium they won't stay strong....so what's the point?

 

[saradoggy10]

You migbt be able to secrecy for strong bones...but unless you raise them with a nutritious balanced diet with proper levels of D3, vitamin A, phos and calcium they won't stay strong....so what's the point?

I apologize you might not understand. Would it be acceptable to breed an animal for a specific trait? For example: Labs were bred for retrieving and spaniels for hunting.
What if you bred a chameleon to be more friendly or have stronger bones
Would that be okay?

 

[Klyde O'Scope]

Selective breeding. Choosing those with stronger bones and breeding them. The testing to determine if they are less susceptible would be up to debate and would take quite a bit of thought to do it without purposefully giving a calcium deficiency.
It would be quite the feat but it could be done.
Should it, though?

OK, I think I understand your motive now from the other thread. However, I think the above may be pretty far into "What if" territory. A strong boned individual could be from genetic disposition, or be genetically average (or normal, whatever term is correct) and have been raised on a good diet, with sufficient exposure to UVB (sunshine). It could also maybe not have been raised particularly well, but had a genetic difference that overproduced bone, the net result being an animal that appeared healthy (i.e. lots of variables.)

If there were some defective gene involved, that specific gene would have to be identified and tested for, as defective genes of various conditions are tested for in other species, including humans.

One difference is, with animals who are selectively bred (do not reproduce via natural selection), the prevailing wisdom (to my knowledge) is not to breed those specimens unless there is some overriding reason (like saving the species from extinction, conserve some other trait, etc.)

IMO, any time humans have messed around with selective breeding, gene manipulation, etc., it's been a double-edged sword. Sometimes good things result; sometimes bad things. A lot of specimens are sacrificed (die) along the way. What if you get a clutch that's 25% what you're trying to achieve, but 75% with propensity for MBD? What do you do with the 75%?

"Should we do a thing just because we can?" is a question that's plagued humankind since the dawn of time, from "Should we invade the next village and steal all their stuff because a [insert natural disaster here] wiped out all our stuff?" to "Should we blow up the world because we can?"

I don't know the answer.

 

[saradoggy10]

OK, I think I understand your motive now from the other thread. However, I think the above may be pretty far into "What if" territory. A strong boned individual could be from genetic disposition, or be genetically average (or normal, whatever term is correct) and have been raised on a good diet, with sufficient exposure to UVB (sunshine). It could also maybe not have been raised particularly well, but had a genetic difference that overproduced bone, the net result being an animal that appeared healthy (i.e. lots of variables.)

If there were some defective gene involved, that specific gene would have to be identified and tested for, as defective genes of various conditions are tested for in other species, including humans.

One difference is, with animals who are selectively bred (do not reproduce via natural selection), the prevailing wisdom (to my knowledge) is not to breed those specimens unless there is some overriding reason (like saving the species from extinction, conserve some other trait, etc.)

IMO, any time humans have messed around with selective breeding, gene manipulation, etc., it's been a double-edged sword. Sometimes good things result; sometimes bad things. A lot of specimens are sacrificed (die) along the way. What if you get a clutch that's 25% what you're trying to achieve, but 75% with propensity for MBD? What do you do with the 75%?

"Should we do a thing just because we can?" is a question that's plagued humankind since the dawn of time, from "Should we invade the next village and steal all their stuff because a [insert natural disaster here] wiped out all our stuff?" to "Should we blow up the world because we can?"

I don't know the answer.

Honestly there IS no answer but the question can build a better painted picture of how it should be dealt with.
And in response to the 25% healthy 75% unhealthy that should not happen unless you were to inbreed. If something like this were to work it would require every animal to be given the same diet and replicate their care in almost every way.

 

[Klyde O'Scope]

I apologize you might not understand. Would it be acceptable to breed an animal for a specific trait? For example: Labs were bred for retrieving and spaniels for hunting.
What if you bred a chameleon to be more friendly or have stronger bones
Would that be okay?

What if the more friendly chameleon was more friendly because it wasn't smart enough to recognize when it was in danger? Or the trait was coupled with less vibrant coloration, or any number of other accidental unforeseen less desirable traits? Again, I don't have any answers, but I have thought about and discussed these things. Part of why I've never been interested in breeding anything, I suppose.

 

[saradoggy10]

What if the more friendly chameleon was more friendly because it wasn't smart enough to recognize when it was in danger? Or the trait was coupled with less vibrant coloration, or any number of other accidental unforeseen less desirable traits? Again, I don't have any answers, but I have thought about and discussed these things. Part of why I've never been interested in breeding anything, I suppose.

*Exactly* personally, I would be interested in breeding but I would feel the need to put it *towards* something. That brings up the discussion again of morphs. Almost every reptile on the market has different morphs and they sell really well.
If a chameleon in a clutch ended up having a morph should it be bred or kept alone?
If you were to breed it would not only be lucrative but undoubtedly increase popularity of the species
But also you would be tainting the original genes

 

[Klyde O'Scope]

*Exactly* personally, I would be interested in breeding but I would feel the need to put it *towards* something. That brings up the discussion again of morphs. Almost every reptile on the market has different morphs and they sell really well.
If a chameleon in a clutch ended up having a morph should it be bred or kept alone?
If you were to breed it would not only be lucrative but undoubtedly increase popularity of the species
But also you would be tainting the original genes

Yes, that's pretty much what I see has happened with bearded dragons. I wanted one as close to "wild" as I could get. Silly me. To find one now (if indeed there are any) would probably cost through the roof due to scarcity in the pet trade. I settled. I've got a pretty plain dragon. I just don't care about all the morph stuff.

 

[saradoggy10]

Yes, that's pretty much what I see has happened with bearded dragons. I wanted one as close to "wild" as I could get. Silly me. To find one now (if indeed there are any) would probably cost through the roof due to scarcity in the pet trade. I settled. I've got a pretty plain dragon. I just don't care about all the morph stuff.

I think that's where I think the pet trade went entirely wrong. Bearded dragons were bred really early on and it's important to still have the wild morph.
For example hognose snakes can have morphs worth $1500 or you could just buy an $80 normal one.
I'm personally terribly interested in morphs as I think they're super cool.
As long as a breeder were breeding pure and morph would there be an issue?

 

[Klyde O'Scope]

I think that's where I think the pet trade went entirely wrong. Bearded dragons were bred really early on and it's important to still have the wild morph.
For example hognose snakes can have morphs worth $1500 or you could just buy an $80 normal one.
I'm personally terribly interested in morphs as I think they're super cool.
As long as a breeder were breeding pure and morph would there be an issue?

Another rhetorical question: Why would a breeder bother to breed $80 snakes if/when they can breed for—and get—$1500 for "super cool"?

This is exactly why (IMO) "wild" dragons can't be easily found anymore. I heartily agree that the pet trade went entirely wrong (as did dogs & others). Greed is a powerful motivator, especially when your healthy plain dragons are sitting there (and keep multiplying) while the gal or guy next to you is selling clutch after clutch of whatever is currently "super cool" (and may be selling his/her culls to big-box stores—or worse—to get rid of them).

Altruism can rarely stand up against economic reality. Now, if the "influencers" out there today declared that pure, natural, wild, what have you is the new "super cool" that might have a short-lived effect, but for how long? Our technological, instant gratification culture seems to have developed very short attention spans. (Let's not get me started on that one... )

 

[Redman]

One advantage, at least IMO (and isn't this a thread about opinion?), to the morph situation is that if extreme morphs feed the pet demand and trade, then I can see an argument for that protecting wild populations. If there is a hypothetical great demand for neon blue whateverthehells, and that morph is the result of years of focused and intelligent line breeding programs, resulting in a healthy and attractive breeding pool so that there is not significant risk of inbreeding, then I can't help but believe that the situation will help protect the wild populations of whateverthehells from over-collection.

I spent more decades than I like to admit as a major fish breeder, focusing specifically on ornamental species like betta splendens, angelfish, and fancy goldfish because of my great interest in genetics and line breeding.

This topic of ethics in breeding has been hammered flat on so many occasions that I feel very familiar with the ethical issues and realities of it. There will always be those on both sides, but in the end you will never control or even influence those who are just out to make a buck.

I mean, in ANY pet hobby, how often do you see "Flash in the pan" people who learn about something new, get that greedy gleam in their eye and think that they are going to get rich in a hurry without any thought or care about the ethical issues involved, and then they find out the hard way how hard/expensive/labor intensive the endeavor is? They are usually here and gone before you know it, right? Most of those with longevity in any hobby have to learn to balance the hobby and their other priorities like family time, money, etc... and unless they run a business with their hobby (which is far too much like work to me! People would exhaust me!) any sales they make are just to help defray a small portion of their costs and make room.

There is an old joke in the Discus community: "Do you want to know how to make a million dollars selling discus? Start with two million!

Sorry for the tangential turn, but I don't think you can divorce the ethical issue from the commercial here, as so many are motivated by earning potential.

For me, personally, it's all about breeding towards specific goals, and I don't give a wet slap about money, but I can't speak for anyone else, and I have seen a LOT of the other end of the spectrum over the years.

 

[saradoggy10]

One advantage, at least IMO (and isn't this a thread about opinion?), to the morph situation is that if extreme morphs feed the pet demand and trade, then I can see an argument for that protecting wild populations. If there is a hypothetical great demand for neon blue whateverthehells, and that morph is the result of years of focused and intelligent line breeding programs, resulting in a healthy and attractive breeding pool so that there is not significant risk of inbreeding, then I can't help but believe that the situation will help protect the wild populations of whateverthehells from over-collection.

I spent more decades than I like to admit as a major fish breeder, focusing specifically on ornamental species like betta splendens, angelfish, and fancy goldfish because of my great interest in genetics and line breeding.

This topic of ethics in breeding has been hammered flat on so many occasions that I feel very familiar with the ethical issues and realities of it. There will always be those on both sides, but in the end you will never control or even influence those who are just out to make a buck.

I mean, in ANY pet hobby, how often do you see "Flash in the pan" people who learn about something new, get that greedy gleam in their eye and think that they are going to get rich in a hurry without any thought or care about the ethical issues involved, and then they find out the hard way how hard/expensive/labor intensive the endeavor is? They are usually here and gone before you know it, right? Most of those with longevity in any hobby have to learn to balance the hobby and their other priorities like family time, money, etc... and unless they run a business with their hobby (which is far too much like work to me! People would exhaust me!) any sales they make are just to help defray a small portion of their costs and make room.

There is an old joke in the Discus community: "Do you want to know how to make a million dollars selling discus? Start with two million!

Sorry for the tangential turn, but I don't think you can divorce the ethical issue from the commercial here, as so many are motivated by earning potential.

For me, personally, it's all about breeding towards specific goals, and I don't give a wet slap about money, but I can't speak for anyone else, and I have seen a LOT of the other end of the spectrum over the years.

This is a fabulous depiction of my argument. I wanted to breed white and pink hognose snakes for a while. I will never be able to breed them. Why? Because they're $5k just to get started!
I think a lot of people would focus and try to develop the morphs on their own and breed a lot of wild in the process.
Then again it is my opinion. I am for morph breeding as long as it's sustainably thought of. I don't believe in breeding just for money so I feel like there should be a goal aspect to it.
My goal in the end is to help the species.

I once talked to a reptile breeder and asked "is it worth it?"
He replied "You make as much as a teacher and work 50 hours a week. It's worth it only if you love your animals and you're passionate about what you do. "

 

[Redman]

Almost every good line-breeding program I have ever used or seen will go back to the wild type at some point, usually on a repeating set schedule every X number of generations, to strengthen the line and eliminate unwanted mutations. In fish, we always worked on physical form issues first, then on color, likening it to building the foundation before applying a coat of paint. The rationalization was: If you paint a neat color on a piece of poo, you still have a piece of poo! LOL

Just my further unrequested $.02.

 

[saradoggy10]

Almost every good line-breeding program I have ever used or seen will go back to the wild type at some point, usually on a repeating set schedule every X number of generations, to strengthen the line and eliminate unwanted mutations. In fish, we always worked on physical form issues first, then on color, likening it to building the foundation before applying a coat of paint. The rationalization was: If you paint a neat color on a piece of poo, you still have a piece of poo! LOL

Just my further unrequested $.02.

Haha I love that! I'll need to talk to more people like you who specialize in morphs! I was looking into saltwater breeding for a while, once I get a masters I plan to start a program where we focus on getting saltwater fish to breed to prevent capture from the wild.
Do you have a website of any morph breeders that I could contact and ask some questions?

 

[Klyde O'Scope]

This is a fabulous depiction of my argument. I wanted to breed white and pink hognose snakes for a while. I will never be able to breed them. Why? Because they're $5k just to get started!

Well, you could always start from scratch, but that might cost you considerably more, and what to do with the snakes that didn't fit your desires or needs?

I think a lot of people would focus and try to develop the morphs on their own and breed a lot of wild in the process.

They do. It's that last group of "in the process" that I'd be concerned about. Unwanted puppies & kittens.

Then again it is my opinion. I am for morph breeding as long as it's sustainably thought of. I don't believe in breeding just for money so I feel like there should be a goal aspect to it.
My goal in the end is to help the species.

IME, that's the goal of most all good breeders—the ones not in it for the money.

I once talked to a reptile breeder and asked "is it worth it?"
He replied "You make as much as a teacher and work 50 hours a week. It's worth it only if you love your animals and you're passionate about what you do. "

That's more than I thought they would make.

It's a calling—a vocation, not an avocation.