|
1-10 of 12 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
A Little Dirt Good For Your Snakes ?
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on January 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is well known that human kids who are allowed to play outside and contact dirt acquire beneficial bacteria that actually makes them healthier later on in life and strengthens their immune systems.
Kids raised in "sterile" enviornments, like citys that are all concrete and asphalt, do not acquire these beneficial bacteria, and suffer from more alergies and health problems later on in life.
Ok, so the question is, if someone is captive breeding snakes, those snakes are often raised in what could be considered a "sterile" enviornment. The cage is clean, the water is clean, the substrate is clean, and the food source is clean. The young snake does not have any contact with the soil bacteria that could help it establish its immune system and culture beneficial bacteria in it`s gut.
This might have a part in the small size we see in many captive new born reptiles at shows, as compared to the much larger wild born relatives.
Some will probably say that exposing snakes to dirt might expose them to harmfull bacteria also. Very possible, but same thing happens in human kids.
Some might say that our local soils do not have the same beneficial bacteria that would be in the soils from the Country where the snake originated. Also, very possible.
Anyone want to speculate if a hand full of dirt in a cage could serve a benefit to new born snakes to expose them to beneficial bacteria that help establish their developing gut flora? Could this help them to grow up healthier and have less illness in the future?
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: A Little Dirt Good For Your Snakes ?
|
Reply
|
|
by rickyduckworth on January 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
that's very interesting.
seems to me that since they will live a sterile life though, that the dirt thing wouldn't help as much.
if a kid was in that ONE more sterile environment, it seems that the study would have come out differently. kinda like training to be an acrobat but never actually doing it. you're not really any better at bowling than the guy who never trained as an acrobat lol.
it would be a cool study though
|
| |
|
RE: A Little Dirt Good For Your Snakes ?
|
Reply
|
|
by kacz on January 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In my opinion (a euphemism for “I have no clue what I’m talking about, but here goes…”) it would probably help to know what bacteria exist as part of the normal flora in a snake. After that it would help to know what the bacteria do: are they pathogens, do they aid in digestion, do they stimulate the immune system? Now you have to figure out where they come from: soil, water, airborne, fomites. It could be that all of the bacteria that really matter are so omnipresent that they quickly inhabit even a “sterile”-raised snake. That first live mouse or fuzzy will probably be sufficient to introduce bacteria into the snake’s gut.
I never let my CB snakes anywhere near the ground or dirt. It’s not the bacteria that I’m worried about, it’s the mites and other ectoparasites.
There are a couple suppositions that I don’t agree with. City environments are hardly sterile. Particularly if the apex predator is the cockroach! Seriously, cockroaches and some molds, that are commonly found in the inner city, produce particularly virulent allergens. As for the small neonates at shows, couldn’t this be due to the entrepreneurial spirit (another euphemism, this time meaning “money grubbing”) of the breeder that would love to breed their pairs before the second shed?
I kinda figure “no harm – no foul”. As long as the mouse isn’t coming out the other end still squeaking, and the snake seems to be thriving, I’m willing to renew my subscription to the local newspaper (it certainly isn’t worth reading), and keep the dirt in my yard and my mind, where it belongs.
Paul M. Kaczmarczik
|
| |
|
RE: A Little Dirt Good For Your Snakes ?
|
Reply
|
|
by Rob_Carmichael on January 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is an interesting topic and one that has been discussed at the zoo level (which I am a part of). There are pros and cons to everything; no matter what we do in a captive environment, it will most likely pale to what the exact requirements are to that individal animal in its natural setting. Questions such as "do the neonates already have the proper gut flora at the time of birth"?, "what are considered healthy exposures to various bacteria?", "how do we manage this in a captive population?" and other questions are oftentimes discussed. Longevity records in public collections seem to show that animals in a captive setting, and given the proper care, can far outlive their wild counterparts who are exposed to many more pressures, and exposed to many more bacteria.
At our facility, our exhibit animals are kept on various top soils, leaf mulches/compost, sands, etc and as such, are exposed to various bacteria that are most likely ingested incidentally during feeding. When I compare these animals to those in our off display areas (that are kept on newspaper) I see very little, if any, difference in overall health. Keeping animals in captivity means having some degree of control over that captive's environment; that includes sanitation. Unless these animals are being reared for future re-introduction, where it would be important for them to be well acclimated to the many things they'll be exposed to, I feel erring on the side of cleanliness, simplicity and sterility, seem to be more effective for long term health. At the same time, I feel that there can be an easily reached middle road approach where exhibits are simple, but also provide some exposure. For example, you might keep a snake on newspaper but provide a small humditiy box/retreat filled with slightly dampened top soil, leaf mulch and peat which makes a great mix for egg laying females as well. The paper can have leaves, grasses and such sprinkled/layered over the top. The snake will be exposed to small amounts of beneficial bacteria AS LONG AS the area is kept clean; not sterile, but clean. I personally enjoy watching my animals in a naturalistic or semi naturalistic set up. Their behaviors are far more interactive with their environment. With our king cobra, Thai, he loves it when I introduce a new natural item like a rotting log, or, a big pile of fresh leaves or a pile of freshly mowed tall grass....sure, they can harbor parasites, but we monitor this closely and only collect in areas free of herbicides/pesticides. You can always treat these items with Proven A Mite if you are concerned about mite/tick transmission (although I have never had this problem).
Long winded, and, still, no definitive answer. But, a good topic nonetheless.
Rob Carmichael, Curator
The Wildlife Discovery Center
|
| |
|
RE: A Little Dirt Good For Your Snakes ?
|
Reply
|
|
by darkFrOsT on January 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
i would think that most captive breed snakes are going to live in captivity all there lives so exposing them to these bacterias would be almost pointless. On the other hand if you were going to release them into the wild i can see where this maybe considered in order to prepare them for what nature has in store for them.
|
| |
|
RE: A Little Dirt Good For Your Snakes ?
|
Reply
|
|
by snakeguy101 on January 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It shouldn't matter because the major part of good husbandry is keeping the tank clean so the snake would not have to worry about its immunities.
|
| |
|
RE: A Little Dirt Good For Your Snakes ?
|
Reply
|
|
by petra on January 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think that being exposed to dirt makes the W/C snakes stronger and bigger. I'd say it's because in captive breeding we do everything we can to make all the babies survive even if it means force feeding for a while. Than by breeding the smaller weaker snakes we get better chance to produce animals that are not as fit as the W/C. W/C snakes simply die if they are small and week and only the strongest will survive.
Petra
|
| |
|
RE: A Little Dirt Good For Your Snakes ?
|
Reply
|
|
by Crotalusssp on January 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I believe Petra is on to something there. In C.B. snakes natural selection has been taken out of the equation. Snakes survive in captivity that would not ordinarily see there first shed. I believe this would be a more valid reason. The micro-organisms gained by wild specimens would be a VERY difficult task to determine. I would be interested to see the difference of bacteria exposure from live to frozen prey for that matter. Any prey item will have natural fauna living on and in it. Which raises the question of natural prey items of the snake versus what it might be being fed in captivity and their differences in their natural occurring bacteria. Sorry do not mean to ramble, this just has me thinking.
|
| |
|
RE: A Little Dirt Good For Your Snakes ?
|
Reply
|
|
by rickyduckworth on January 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
what if feeding live animals exposes them more to these beneficial bacteria and when feeding frozen, along with a less nutritious meal, you also get less beneficial bacteria.
|
| |
|
RE: A Little Dirt Good For Your Snakes ?
|
Reply
|
|
by Crotalusssp on January 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am certain frozen would be more sterile. This would be a little easier to measure, but would still be quite an undertaking. Once a bacterial colony has been established within the G.I. tract of an individual, it would most likely remain unless somehow interfered with by disturbance or antibiotics given for infection. It is for these reasons I believe hatchling snakes should be fed live their first few feedings, but after that they should be fine on frozen. This is just my hypothesis, but I think it is pretty sound. What does anyone else think?
|
| |
|
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.
|
