healthy breeding.

[kirby]

hey everyone.

i haven't been on here in SOOO long. but the break has let me think about alot of things, Donna would say Ive totally changed, but i still have strong ethical opinions, and the heart to think of the animals at hand.

my question is.

hypo, leathers, lecuestics, and to a minor extent (not that i would want to purposely breed these) silkbacks, would they be accepted, if they were bred ethically.

if no inbreeding was involved, out-sourcing similar characteristics etc. and keep/breed healthy unrelated individuals to create such morphs.

Ive been involved in, and seen enough 4,000 page threads dogging them. i want to hear YOUR opinion on breeding them, without inbreeding. is it possible, is it accepted?

K.

 

[fresnowitte]

Paul I seriously do not know much about the types your speaking of nor do I have any experience with them. However I do feel that somehow by doing this it's damaging the bloodlines with the inbreeding and creating of these types. I think that it may weaken the hardiness of the beardie. I think the damage is already created whether you would choose to imbreed or not. Because they have been altered from their original gene make up. I really think those are all nice looking dragons, but I've not read enough or experimented with to beable to give you an educated answer or opinion for that matter.

I'm sorry that I can't be of any help.

So just take this as a bump. :wink:

 

[kirby]

Thanks Barbara. unfortunately YES, alot of the US stock is deteriorating in health, due to inbreeding and lack of fresh bloodlines.

BUT, leathers and certain morphs are popping up all around the world, purely by some genetic 'failure?' to produce fully formed tubercles, which has come about from two unrelated parents. if these were then bred ethically and with sustainable health, would they be favourable, or acceptable over those which had extensive breeding, line breeding and inbreeding?

thanks for the Reply. and the bump.

 

[Dave94]

I think if they're done ethically then it's ok. Though I'm not sure on silkbacks, personally I would prefer to keep the scales but whatever floats your boats. BUT if silkbacks or leatherbacks are in great health why not? as long as they aren't in poor condition.

Inbreeding I don't mind it, though I think you should bring new blood in every couple of generations, otherwise your gene pool will be a complete mess and you could hatch out deformed dragons. There has been a few cases in Aus of two headed dragons or two tailed dragons that have died a few weeks after hatching or in the egg, I think that if you bring new blood in after a while this would cut down on cases like this.

Dave

 

[Rosebud]

Barbara, you have a point. They might be popping up around the world without the breeder meaning to, but are they popping up in the wild? My guess is the answer is no. You have to remember that any captive breeding is selective breeding because the animals don't have a choice about mates and natural selection is thrown out the window. The leatherback gene would not likely be replicated in the wild as it is even inadvertently in captivity because the spikes on beardies have evolved naturally for a reason: for protection. Also, you can't know what other genetic mutations occur along with the reduction in the spikes, such as immunodeficiency, tendencies to develop heart problems, etc. Only time will tell if these beardies live a normal life span. Do you know of any that have so far?

You can compare this to other breed mutations in other pet animals. Paul, I talked to you about lutino birds. I used to LOVE lutino cockatiels, but some lutinos are weak because the genetics have been watered down. HOWEVER, I had a long talk with one of the founders of the biggest cockatiel org in the US this past summer, and he is working on breeding "strong" lutinos, ie, lutinos that are bred without inbreeding and put into large flight cages where they can develop some of those natural features that captive birds are losing, like reduced muscular build and weaker hearts from lack of flying. So it might be possible to create a stronger strain of a particular morph if you remove the inbreeding, but we probably won't know if that is possible for awhile.

So, the leatherbacks are still a product of captive breeding even when inbreeding is not occurring, at least as far as I know. But is it ethical? Well, these beardies are not in the wild. They do not need the sharp spikes on their scales to survive, but I think they do still need the scales themselves to process UVB since they are uvb dependent animals. I still say that silkbacks are the result of humans crossing the line. I would have to reserve judgment until I see down the line how they do long term. They might just end up being another breed, which is fine. :wink:

BTW, I still find lutino cockateils to be just stunning, but only the truly healthy, robust ones. 8)

 

[kirby]

true, in the wild lateral spines allow no 'outline' to the dragons shape when camouflaged. but this is captivity and these things aren't necessary with lack of preditors. but, with silkbacks, scales are still necessary as a means of protection.

as to other genetic failures (internal changes) i agree about other problems that may come with it. BUT, isnt this just as likely to happen with any other captive line breeding, or any breeding in general.

 

[Rosebud]

Yes, its like any captive breeding to a point. All captive breeding has the potential to cause genetic mutations and weakening of the line, but thats not necessarily always true. I have not studied the history of the leather back mutation, but I suspect that it was one mutation further than a color morph? But it is not a simple color morph mutation. It moves further into the realm of organ mutation, as skin or scales are considered organs, and that can be a Pandora's box. If you can stop at a reduction of spikes, then I am probably okay with that, but can you? When you start putting two beardies with the same mutation together to produce that mutation, then you are pushing the envelop, especially if you are a breeder who only has two leather backs out of a clutch and have to pair siblings or parents/kids to get it. You are more likely to end up with a silk back, I think.

You know, I wonder if you could reduce the chance of getting a silk back by pairing a beardie with the leather back gene with one that does not have that gene mutation? You would still get some leather back babies, but not whole clutches and the chance of a silk back would be reduced? I'm not a geneticist, and its been a long time since I studied biology! :lol:

Paul, I guess, you might be able to make a more informed opinion by talking to a biologist or geneticist about how all of this stuff works. My guess, and that is all it is without having a firmer grip on the science, is that you have to draw your own line in the sand with regard to ethics. How far can you push genetics in good conscience? How well informed are you to make that decision?

 

[kirby]

bump

 

[Drache613]

Hello Paul,

I have mixed feelings about breeding to get a desired genetic "mutation" or genetic "defect" however one wants to look at it. I agree with Barbara & with Donna in the fact that I highly doubt that leatherbacks & silkbacks are found in the wild. I believe that this gene came about due to a gradual weakening of the genes of this particular species. If it would have always been there breeders like Chris Allen or Bert Langerwerf (bless him) would have seen this gene a long time ago popping up in their colonies. However, I know for sure that those 2 individuals did not practice inbreeding. Bert in particular, got his stock from overseas & was extremely picky about his stock & he did alot of breeding for alot of years before he recently passed away. He never had that gene crop up, ever.
I think that it will take alot more research & keeping them to see exactly what is going on with their genes. If it can successfully be done without inbreeding & they are healthy then, it may very well be the next "new" breed of vitticeps.
The main things that I have a problem with when doing selective breeding for a particular desired gene is that it does throw the natural selection out of whack. While it is true that they may not need thicker scales as they do in the wild, they do serve a purpose even in captivity. The thick scales protect their skin from UVB & from injury. However, in a dragon with reduced scales lacks the protection of their skin from the UVB's & may need to be limited to their basking time under UVB. They need a certain amount of uWcm2 to maintain their bone strength yearly. If they are unable to be exposed to strong UVB will they suffer from metabolic bone disease later on in life, or will their offspring have calcium problems? They are designed to be able to withstand natural sunlight & strong UVB emissions so by eliminating their armor we are taking that privilege away from them & possibly weakening them. Saying that they don't know the difference because they are captive bred really is not fair to them. We should try to emulate nature as closely as possible to give them the best life possible while in our care.
Playing with nature is not always nice, & in the end it will depend on how far you are willing to go with it. It goes past ethics, but instead, true compassion & love for the species as well as conservation of the true species too. No matter what, the needs of the animals should always override our desires to breed what we think would be cool. It absolutely has to be that way or we risk losing the reason why we are even keeping them.
I agree with Donna in the fact that we are breeding alot of natural instincts out the more we inbreed & change around the genes. We have seen here in the US the devastating effects of inbreeding which has decreased the average size of the bearded dragons as well as increased health problems too.
Those are the types of things that are my main concerns. I guess I come off sounding too "old" school, & maybe that is wrong, I don't know. I am not a breeder, & if I ever did breed, I would only breed the plain natural morphs, & if they happened to have color, that would be a bonus. Back to basics is not always a bad thing. Sometimes, it is the only way to preserve something precious.

I hope I gave you what you were looking for, to see both sides.

Tracie

 

[citrusdragon]

IMHO
Silkbacks are a morph that will not go far. Most breeders see them for the mutant oddity that they are. I recently had the opportunity to choose between a smoothie and a silkie sibling, and the silkie looked creepy. They have shedding problems and loose tails and toes very easily from what I've heard. Mating a female silkie can be terminal for the female.
Leatherbacks and Smoothies are kind of a physical fad like the translucents. I will admit the black eyes of a trans look very cool. But the leathers are less "dragon like" in my opinion. It is the fairytale appearance of the bearded dragon that captivate most people and I believe scales enhance that look.
Getting to the point of selected breeding for "color" morphs, I believe we are getting to a point of shear numbers where the breeding population is getting diversified. The week point in the family tree is the mass produced inbred animals that come out of the "puppy farm" breeders. I don't think the selective breeding causes the problems that inbreeding sick dragons causes. Color seems to be a fairly benign gene trait these days, though maybe not some years ago. And there are breeders actively importing new F1 bloodlines into their stock.

Anyway, I don't look at this as a capitalist, or a naturalist, but I like to be reasonable and I feel that dragons have become domestic animals that people have increased in number to suit their likes. There are more healthy dragons alive today because there is a market for them. Are they all healthy? I don't know, but they aren't going to be extinct anytime soon.

I always worry wading into these discussions, but I am always open to be persuaded to a new opinion.

Jeff

 

[dolcedragon]

No matter what, the needs of the animals should always override our desires to breed what we think would be cool. It absolutely has to be that way or we risk losing the reason why we are even keeping them.

Although I think some of the newer morphs are beautiful, I think it really all comes down to this.

 

[vickson420]

Wow difficult question.I have many mixed feelings on this.First thing I would ask myself is,is the new morph a true weakening of the species?What I mean by this is does it affect the animals quality of life and health.My first instinct is if it does then no I wouldnt pursue it.One example of this IMO is silkbacks or albinos.Just during the breeding process alone the harm that would come from not having scales alone is enough to say it shouldnt be.Albinos quite obviously have at this time a minute chance of survival but yet people are still chasing that morph for what reason I will never know.Translucents seem to be doing ok but I think at the moment that inbreeding has seriously weakened that line for the time being.As for leatherbacks,hypos,leucistics,other colors I wouldnt have issues with it so long as it was done appropriately and in keeping with the first aim being healthy beardies.

 

[kirby]

at it. I agree with Barbara & with Donna in the fact that I highly doubt that leatherbacks & silkbacks are found in the wild. I believe that this gene came about due to a gradual weakening of the genes of this particular species. If it would have always been there breeders like Chris Allen or Bert Langerwerf (bless him) would have seen this gene a long time ago popping up in their colonies. However, I know for sure that those 2 individuals did not practice inbreeding. Bert in particular, got his stock from overseas & was extremely picky about his stock & he did alot of breeding for alot of years before he recently passed away. He never had that gene crop up, ever.
I think that it will take alot more research & keeping

i have to disagree. i see no reason why these 'leathers' would not pop up in the wild. they dont have to be produced via inbreeding, or line breeding. i know of two examples within Australia (fresher stock then US) where leatherbacks have popped up without inbreeding for two generations before them, this isnt to say the generations before them werent/or were inbred, its just unknown. i beleive, the reason Chriss Allen or Bert Langerwerf havent seen this morph in there collection, is purely genetics. if two completely unrelated individuals (multi-generational outsourcing) can throw out a leather, in two examples. im sure this shows it a freak genetic smash-up rather then inbreeding. its like down syndrome and disorders don't only come about with closely related humans, a freak smash between genetics.

However, in a dragon with reduced scales lacks the protection of their skin from the UVB's & may need to be limited to their basking time under UVB. They need a certain amount of uWcm2 to maintain their bone strength yearly. If they are unable to be exposed to strong UVB will they suffer from metabolic bone disease later on in life, or will their offspring have calcium problems? They are designed to be able to withstand natural sunlight & strong UVB emissions so by eliminating their armor we are taking that privilege away from them & possibly weakening them.

speaking for leathers here. it isnt reduced scales. the scales are just alot smaller. the tall spiny tubercles just arent there. instead it looks like an entirely different scale. small, round, flat and smooth. take a look at these pics.

in comparison

as for uWcm2 and Uvb with scales Vs no scales.

i know Dachiu has results from scaleless gopher snakes with heat transfer. http://compphys.bio.uci.edu/bennett/pubs/4.pdf

but for Uv, i have no answer. Personally, i think our 'top of the market' uv tubes, just make the border of D3 appropriateness. i dont think they are any match for the sun. so i feel that the use of this with an animal with no tubercles, or tough scales would be similar to that of a frog, newt, or thin skinned reptile. we both know these tubes arent going to give off too much uv, and the excess D3 absorbed will be passed from the body into the Urates.

i see your point and opinions, but i think theres more to find out with these things. there is no need to breed silkbacks to produce more, so no danger with other dragons. (assuming a responsible keeper keeps them separated. )

Vickson, i agree.

if the animal is in pain or not living normally, it shouldnt be bred. but really, should zack-and-wheezie be alive or accepted, ( i love them) but they arent natural, techincally in stress (there both male) and possibly very confused and agitated at there state of body. surely the stress of this situation, is alot less then having smoother scales? according to Dachiu and many other breeders, they live totally normal lives.

 

[vickson420]

Kirby
I totally hear what your saying in regards to Z&W and I am going to to twist it on you a bit :wink: .Should Z&W be here I have to say yes simply because they are here.They were not an attempt at genetic manipulation nor one of intelligent design they just happened.With that said even though they are thriving and a miracle unto themselves I do not believe that anyone should intentionally try to reproduce their unique design.I would go so far as to say that I dont believe that their "parents" should be bred with eachother again as to avoid it from possibly happening again and I may be wrong but I dont believe they ever were bred again with eachother after this "suprise" of nature.I do not believe a silkback can lead a perfectly normal life.It is ill equipped to do so.What I generally ask myself is can this animal survive without human intervention or do we have to step in for it to survive let alone thrive? If the answer is no it cant survive under normal circumstance then I personally do not believe its a line that should be pursued.

So can you tell us more about these beardies you have posted pics of? Are they from one of your clutches? They are definately interesting and I dont see why a morph of this type if bred naturally couldnt be a viable line.

 

[kirby]

Vickson420, they are Dachiu's images as examples.

I think the problem we all had (including myself) when we were first shown either leathers of Silkbacks, is we didnt know how they came about (initially) or how they could live. (with or without human intervention)

after looking into it, i thoroughally beleive a silkback, could and would live happily in an enclosure that we (general bd.org community) care for there dragons. tile (no sand abrasion) soft smooth rocks, no sharp edges (common practive for any reptile enthusiast) and a suitable humidity, heat, uv.

the thing that bugs me, is the 'scaleless' name. people must think that they do not infact have skin, if they dont have scales. the only skin shown on a silkback is the softer underlayer. Imagin if your skin has another layer of skin (like wearing a leotard) and this leotard had scales. these scales were formed over millions and millions of years of evolution, as a means of protection and disguise. from breeding and territorial bites, sharp rocks, disguise and camouflage. none of these things are necessary for protection in a captive environment.

i feel any special care (if any) that a silk needs, we already provide for our scaled dragons.

i think alot the veiws and perceptions (including my own) are because of what we 'think' they are, or they 'need'...