|
1-10 of 10 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
New evidence suggesting venomoiding is detrimental
|
Reply
|
|
by Phobos on May 2, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
New evidence suggesting venomoiding is detrimental to the animal’s long-term survival.
Over the many years I've been keeping venomous snakes this single topic which causes the most controversy is that of “venomoiding”. Venomoiding is the process in which the venom glands and ducts are surgically removed, rendering the snake incapable of envenomating. Not a particularly complex bit of surgery but care must be taken to preserve local nerves and blood supply. Furthermore, the veterinary surgeon must ensure that all remains of the ducts and venom gland are removed or else the venom apparatus could regenerate. Elapids who were previously subjected to this procedure have been demonstrated to have re-grown venom glands and ducts when great care has not been taken.
In the past the general arguments were inhumane, unnecessary, cruel, and causes digestive problem. The only one of those that remains questionable is regarding the snake’s digestive process without the aide of its digestive enzyme within the venom itself. No one that I know of has taken the time to set up the proper experiment to prove or disprove this theorem.
However, an interesting account of a fatal envenomation of a venomoid black mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis) by another Black Mamba housed in the same enclosure caused me to have a closer look. The fatal bite was inflicted during feeding by another large cage mate, just behind the head of the venomoid snake. It took three or four days for the male snake die however it did indeed happen. A necropsy was performed on the dead male venomoid. Severe necrosis was found from the bite site extending approximately 15 inches towards the tail. It's seems in this case the venomoid still maintained some immunity to the lethal fractions of the Mamba venom but had no protection against the digestive or proteolytic fractions.
This finding is quite interesting on many levels. It would seem on the surface that the venom gland itself provides protection against the actions of the venom against the host snake. Yeah, no duh! Once the venom glands and ducts are removed it would seem the snake loses immunity to venom produced by others of the same species. It would also be interesting to discover how long this process may take and just what community is lost and retained. Can a vaccine for human or domesticated animal being developed knowing this. I can think of a few experiments that could shed further light on these questions, unfortunately I do not have the time or the laboratory to it up.
|
| |
|
RE: New evidence suggesting venomoiding is detrime
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on May 2, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Al, that is a very interesting finding. I can see the possibility of some very good research coming from those findings. Hopefully, someone with a lab, and research money, will look into that.
Best Regards
John Z
|
| |
|
RE: New evidence suggesting venomoiding is detrime
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on May 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim Harrison has a nice video of extracting venom form a "venomoid".
DH
|
| |
|
RE: New evidence suggesting venomoiding is detrime
|
Reply
|
|
by Phobos on May 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yeah Doug... Jim and I discuss this topic often. People also don't realize they could get one hell of an infection from a venomoid bite.
|
| |
|
RE: New evidence suggesting venomoiding is detrime
|
Reply
|
|
by Chance on May 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm certainly no molecular biologist or physiologist (hopefully one will chime in?) but I'm trying to reason out how the presence of the venom gland itself could generate an immunity to any protein in the venom the snake naturally produces? If a species of snake tends to be immune to its own venom (which is not always the case anyway), then that immunity developed over the eons it took for that species to evolve. The fact that the snake evolved to produce the particular proteins and enzymes in its venom and is thus not affected by those same proteins and enzymes should not really have anything to do with the surgical removal of the gland itself. At least it doesn't seem like it should.
I would propose an alternate hypothesis to the above example: That either the particular unfortunate polylepis in question wasn't particularly immune to the other snake's venom, much like how there is a lot of variation among any animal in response to an envenomation; or maybe no snake is completely immune to another's venom.
On that last note, I have an example and some further hypothesizing. The example involves two kaouthia I used to have. Both snakes were quite hot, one was a captively produced amelanistic and the other was a long term wild caught. I got the idea in my head that I wanted to breed them as the female was certainly big enough and the amel male was pretty close. As soon as I introduced them, the little turd of an amel male latched on to the female about halfway down her body. Needless to say that was a fun time getting the two apart and plans for breeding were shot to Hades (which is fine considering how many kaouthia were floating around then anyway!). The female received a pretty good envenomation and it didn't take long for her to begin to swell. She had local effects from the envenomation for at least a few days before they subsided, so obviously she wasn't completely immune to her own species' venom.
So here's another hypothesis: Stress may also play a role in a snake's perceived immunity to its own species' venom. In my example above, she was a wild caught snake and undoubtedly found captivity a little stressful. She was never as 'outgoing' as the amel and always stayed hidden. In the mamba example, the animal that died had undergone surgery (though we're not told how long ago the surgery was performed). It also may just not have been as suited to captivity as others of its species. I would assume stress would have to play some roll in a snake's venom tolerance, considering that it can play a major role in a snake's ability to deal with parasites or infection.
My major point is, right now there are probably too many variables or possibilities to try to pin this example down on the death of the venomoid. It very likely could be that the snake no longer had its venom glands, but it also very likely could have had nothing to do with that. I would be very interested to see any further research into this, though it would be nice if that research could be done without having to envenomate venomoid snakes just to see what happens!
Disclaimer: The above posting is in no way in support of the venomoid procedure, the ridiculous pricing of such snakes, or in defense of those who decide to keep them.
|
| |
|
RE: New evidence suggesting venomoiding is detrime
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on May 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Al, it might not be venom related.
It might be pressure related, kind of like snakes and big cats have round head and they can put more pressure on tissues and break blood vessels and do tissue damage even in the absence of broken, skin or little puncture, see this tiger bite here:
http://www.orthosupersite.com/view.asp?rid=32931
Think cave-ins, no broken bloody skin, but the pressure of the soil can damage internal organs and blood vessels.
So in your case it might be simply wound infection plus tissue/fang pressure damage near important areas (neck that got swollen/infected and killed the snake
Z
|
| |
|
RE: New evidence suggesting venomoiding is detrime
|
Reply
|
|
by Crotalusssp on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What do you guys think about this hypothesis? How about the idea that the gland offers a type of passive immunity as seen in infants after birth? Once the gland is removed after a period of time the passively attained antibodies begin to lose effectiveness. Another idea I kicked around is varying venom compositions based on geography. Just a couple of ideas I wanted to throw out for consideration.
Charles
|
| |
|
RE: New evidence suggesting venomoiding is detrime
|
Reply
|
|
by Phobos on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's all speculation, even my idea. I just made an observation and assumption based on the observation. Certainly a doctoral in there...
TE: What is your thoughts on this.
Al
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
