|
Member Comment
|
3/1/2010 6:27:45 PM
|
|
LateNightGeckos
|
|
This is a confusing question...Did you purchase what you thought was a normal het for pied, or a yellow belly het for pied?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Comment
|
3/1/2010 6:30:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/1/2010 6:50:57 PM
|
|
bad
|
|
Doesn't look like a yellow belly to me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/1/2010 7:38:10 PM
|
|
shellboa
|
|
It is possible but that is not a yellow belly and quite frankly does not even look like a het pied. Yellow bellys have distinct patterns and yellow coloration on an other wise completely clear belly with yellow fiery blushing up the sides. Het pieds have long connected striping on the sides of the clear belly with a ringer like mark near the cloaca. To me that looks like one of the more interesting co-dom siblings that have been coming out lately. The spider sibs I have been seeing are fantastic and look like they should be something more than they really are. I believe that the inbreeding is causing greater variations to the wild patterning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/1/2010 7:41:48 PM
|
|
Cenobite
|
Yes you can have a yellow belly het pied. But thats a normal belly You wont know if its het pied until its bred to another het pied or a pied.
YB X Pied:
50%: Het Piebald
50%: Yellow Belly, Het Piebald
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/1/2010 8:04:41 PM
|
|
Sigfried
|
But if you purchased it as het. for pied, then it should be! And on the topic of belly striping consitency in the heterozygous for piebalds, it is an inconsitent pattern, probably caused by linked-genes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/1/2010 8:40:06 PM
|
|
Cenobite
|
|
No Sigfried. There is no "should be" when it comes to het BP's. Only "I hope so's". There is NO way of knowing if you have a het for anything until you breed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Comment
|
3/1/2010 11:21:46 PM
|
|
meanderpaul
|
|
im not sure if im understanding all of you but it sounds like a consensus on the fact that he is not a YB but a normal possible het but cant be sure only the word of a breeder till bred?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/2/2010 12:42:26 AM
|
|
shellboa
|
I'm not sure where you are getting your information regarding striping and visible clues to pied hets but I have worked with several breeders and seen plenty of offspring from visible parents that I can say with confidence that you can see distinct markers for a 100% het pied. If you know your genetics you know there are also degrees of alele splitting and you can end up with a 66% or a 50 % and those are the ones where there is controversy over markings and how to tell out side of breeding them to known parentage or visibles to prove traits.
I have yellow belly balls and I have seen many degrees of "is this one or not" and say also with confidence that that one is not. I also have 100% het pieds with the distinct markers and several that could be either 66% or 50 % because they carry one or two of the markers but not all 3.
So, you could have a het for pied that is either 66% or 50 % but it does not look 100% het.
As for the word of the breeder...well I have some triple het for super pastel woma I'll sell you for $100 each...
unless you see that the breeder has the visible parents, know the breeder personally or get a written guarantee of some kind and they have been around long enough for it to mean some thing, you are simply playing the lottery. Some times even seeing the possible parents isn't proof...how do you know that clutch came from that snake?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/2/2010 4:52:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/2/2010 8:37:32 AM
|
|
JohnJohn
|
|
I agree with Shellboa. I have a normal sibling from a spider pairing that really looks amazing and has some spidery qualities but really is normal. She has lighter eyes than normal, brighter colors than normal and very reduced pattern, but still just a nice normal. The only way to know is to breed to another het and see what comes out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/2/2010 3:31:11 PM
|
|
Sigfried
|
If one of the parents was homozygous piebald, and the other was homozygous normal, and no nondisjunction occured in either of the spermatogenesis or oogenesis, then that snake is heterozygous piebald. There would be no possible other combination. If you even want me to get techical, I will explain to you what I mean. If he bought it as a normal, then there is a very slim chance that it is heterozygous piebald. If he purchased that snake as 25%, 50%, 66%, etc. then the genotype is undefined until, as you said Cenobite, you breed it to ball python, and the homozygous phenotype is seen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/2/2010 3:32:57 PM
|
|
Sigfried
|
*you breed it to another ball python that has the trait(whether it is heterozygous or homozygous), and the homozygous phenotype is seen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/2/2010 5:57:09 PM
|
|
thestef
|
|
I dont really think a het pied is supposed to look any different. Het just meants it's in thier genetics to have that offspring, so if you breed it with another ball you have a 25% chance of having pied babies :D it's possible to have any kind of snake thats het for something if one of the parents or grandparents were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/2/2010 6:07:09 PM
|
|
aSnakeLovinBabe
|
That is a normal animal. I have seen het pied animals that were the direct offspring of a pied that had a totally normal phenotype with no "markers" as you would call them. Pied is recessive and there are NO guarantees that a het animal for a recessive trait will have any markers. Sometimes there are, sometimes there aren't, and sometimes an animal will have the markers and end up not being het. This, I have seen also. A true recessive gene het animal is totally normal in appearance and doesn't HAVE to have any sort of marker, although some of them, sometimes do. This could even be attributed more to other genes that were passed along with that line of animal when the morph was discovered and line bred to prove out the morph. It gets even more confusing when referring to "het" animals when people often call an animal displaying the intermediate form of an incomplete dominant trait a "het" for the super form. Such as people referring to Yellowbellies as het ivories When really a yellow belly is the ivory gene and the normal gene competing to be shown on the same snake, and neither can fully overcome the other. Het should really only be applied to true recessive genes. Sorry to ramble....
And if you bought from a reputable breeder then yes, there ARE "should be's"... if you bought from a dealer you are uncertain of... then it's more of an "I hope so!". If you got paper work, that would be the best situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/2/2010 7:02:37 PM
|
|
Sigfried
|
@ aSnakeLovinBabe Finally! Someone who knows, and completely understands, genetics. It gets really annoying when people argue about things they do not know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Comment
|
3/2/2010 8:50:18 PM
|
|
meanderpaul
|
|
I dont really understand the whole genetics thing on anything more then basic punet square types of stuff....but my girl friend does.i havent any paper work on him. i was unsure about the morph and that would have lead me to believe the sex could have been wrong. was mearly curisosity deal. i never though i could have made such a debate over one snake lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/2/2010 9:30:18 PM
|
|
Sigfried
|
Haha. Okay, so answer me this: Did you buy the snake as het piebald?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 12:07:15 AM
|
|
Chad
|
|
asnakelovin babe seems to be one of the only people who knows the genetics very well on here. In addition to what she said, there are no such things animals that are 66% and 50% het. They are 100% het. or 0% het. For example, an animal can be 66% possible to be a het. which means that it has a 66% chance of being a 100% het. and a 33% chance of being 0% het. (normal). Once again, 66% and 50% possible hets are all either 100% het. or 0%. It is possible that the 100% het. for pied animals might have a visible marker, but they also might not, and the only way to be sure is to breed it to a het. pied or pied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 1:18:28 AM
|
|
shellboa
|
I beg your pardon but my understanding of genetics is that there are percentage possibilities in any genetic lottery and with out any markers (which there are many well known breeders who will agree that they exist) you are assuming a chance.
If you do a basic punnet with a normal and a recessive gene carrier you can calculate for 4 offspring. After that with the splitting of aleles you have to recalculate occourance ratios and that is where the terms of 50 % and 66% come from there are also 73% but that is only if you get a record clutch of 10 or more and since pieds are know for puny clutchs they are basically unheard of.
Before you assume you know everything because you have taken a basic genetics course remeber there are those who have been around the block in breeding and that snake genetics is a different ball game with morphology than your basic mamallian precedents.
Go talk to the guys like Bob Applegate and Bob Clark and Kevin Mccurly about genetic lottery and visual het markers before you flaunt your knowledge and assume that a mere handful are the experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 1:27:37 AM
|
|
shellboa
|
|
p.s. just out of curiosity how long have y'all been breeding and how many breeders have you consulted personally and how much book learning do you actually have? Just wondering what it takes to qualify as an expert here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 2:05:35 AM
|
|
Chad
|
OK shellboa, no disrespect here, but I am baffled by your original post. So what is the "marker" for a 66% possible het. pied? How is the "marker" for a 66% het. pied different than the marker for a pied?
Do you believe it is possible to tell a 66% possible het. from a 50% possible het. from a 100% possible het, by looking at them? If so, I would have to see someone do it to believe it. Additionally, I already was familiar with how the 66% and 50% ratios are arrived at. The 66% ones are generally from breeding two hets together and the 50% hets. are generally from breeding a het. to a normal or some other morph. The 50% means that it is like a coin flip as to whether it is a 100% het or a 0% het. So why would a 50% or 66% possible het. have a "marker" that is somehow different than a het?
Truly I mean you no disrespect, but this makes no sense to me. Am I missing something?
Do you agree at least that a 50% possible het. (from het. x normal breeding) is actually an animal that has a 50% chance of being a 100% het. and a 50% chance of being a 0% het? (average numbers of course)?
To respectfully answer your question, my only training in this is about 8 years of working with ball pythons and that I own and have read the book "Genetics for Herpers," so I don't claim anything more or less than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Comment
|
3/3/2010 9:51:29 AM
|
|
meanderpaul
|
|
my snake was bought as a het for pied baby. I wasnt told and i didnt ask what percent of him was pied as i wasnt much concerned with it as long as he was het for it. Again i understand very small amounts of genetics but i do grasp what chad just said and to me it makes sense on that part about 50% being either 100 % or 0% pied. (this is why i dont study bio or genetics...law enforcement major) lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 11:08:53 AM
|
|
shellboa
|
To clarify, I said that a 100% het is the one that should have markers not the 66% or the 50%. Although you are correct that I did not say that until my second post. That is how breeders have been able to guarantee the genetics and not gotten a bad rep as some one selling hets that are not hets. The 66% and the 50% are almost impossible to distinguish and that is where the genetic lottery comes in and you can only know if you breed it back to either a 100% het or a visible. I'm sure you are also aware that even with 100% het animals you can some times miss the alele pairing and get no visible morphs. Even with co-doms you can get low ratios. Last year I bred a normal female to a lesser male, she had a clutch of 9 and 7 were visible lessers. I also bred a normal female with a pastel, she had a clutch of 5 and one was a pastel. Nowadays with the market being what it is most people sell their undistingishable hets as either normals or possible hets for a few extra bucks.
Here is the passage from the gentics book minus the pic of the square." crossing a NN to an aa gives you all Na =100% het. NN to Na gives only two Na 50% possible het ,crossing Na to Na gives one NN two Na and one aa= one visible the rest have a 66% chance of being het." This is assuming there are only 4 eggs to a clutch and you get perfect alele patterns.
My genetics professor said he has had several people who bred animals ask him about this issue and he won't actually give any statistics until you take the third section but if you draw it and do the calculations he will say yes or no. And I am a bio major.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 11:15:04 AM
|
|
RebelYell83
|
|
one question for shellboa,,what is the difference between a 100% het that proves out and has markers,and a 50% het that proves out and has no markers?,arent they both genetically identical?,if you have a clutch of 5 50% hets,and none have markers,does this mean none are hets?,basically genetically,,your het or your not,no matter if you brother is a het or a normal,your still a het,bottomline,so your theory of all hets having markers,hold no water,as there would be no such thing as a 50% het for pied.as has been documented by many breeders,het "markers"are only useful when breeding 50% hets and giving you an idea of which animals to focus on,but those with markers,could never prove out,while thier siblings without them do. but i digress,and back to the original question,how can a het with no markers that proves to be a het,be any less geneticall equivalent to a het with markers out the wazoo,if both prove out,then arent the same exact level of hets?,wouldnt that mean the markers dont always make the snake?,and to further go into it,if there was set in stone visual differences between a het pied and a normal,then wouldnt that classify the het pied as a co dom,and not a recessive,as it is visually different then a normal clutch mate,and it has a super form?,what breeders have taught you how to completely rewrite and classify widely known and accepted genetic rules followed by the likes of bhb,ralph davis,graziani and others,what secrets do you know that they dont on genetics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 11:19:57 AM
|
|
shellboa
|
|
And Chad, it is correct that if the animal that has a 66% chance of being a het IS a het it is a 100% het and there are no percentage of heterozygousness just the chances of whether or not they carry the genes. The whole bit about the markers is that every animal that has been shown to have the striping along the belly with the whiteness and fiery blushing along with the ringer mark near the cloaca has been bred out and proven to be het so they use those characteristics to offer the guarantee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assisted Answer
|
3/3/2010 2:44:03 PM
|
|
Chad
|
Right on shellboa,
But I still don't agree with what you said when you said, "So, you could have a het for pied that is either 66% or 50 % but it does not look 100% het."
Do you see what I mean the way you worded that? A "het for pied that is either 66% or 50%" does not exist as you have now pointed out.
rebelyell83 has done a good job of further explaing why the whole paragraph my quote came from seems not to make much sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Comment
|
3/3/2010 3:01:20 PM
|
|
meanderpaul
|
|
i was under the impression that a het for somthing simply means a possiblity to have that het after breeding like flipping a coin and geting what you want one time and not the next. I dont get the whole 66% part of being het. I thought i heard somewhere that a snake will receive the genes from one parten but a brother/sister could have it from the other not both; not including the random freaks like that albino pied with normal as the other pattern instead of black.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 3:19:39 PM
|
|
Chad
|
Here you go Paul. I hope this helps. Take your time man. Nobody learns this stuff overnight.
http://www.newenglandreptile.com/genetics_simple_recessive.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 3:40:55 PM
|
|
shellboa
|
I feel like we are saying basically the same thing but the method of communicating it is what is different and if you look on these links you may get a better understanding of what I was trying to say...
http://www.nextworldexotics.com/hghpm.htm
http://www.morphguide.freejoomlas.com/content/view/44/28/
and if you can make it through Ralph Davis' rambling notes he mentions him and Pete Kahl having various discussions re; the pied markers and how invariably the ones with markers prove out more consistently than the ones without. Google it dear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 3:45:49 PM
|
|
shellboa
|
|
The genetics is the same, it either is or is not a 100% het, it is the chances of whther or not the offsrpring can carry the genetics that is either a 50% chance or a 66% chance again based on the number of offspring produced. The issue of markers has more to do with a sign of an animal carying the gene than what percentage of chance it has for being a het. That does not make it a dominant or co-dominant. Think about pink eyed grey mice for example...albanism is a heterozygous trait but pink eyes are a sign that that grey colored mouse carries the gene that will express albanism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 4:23:37 PM
|
|
Chad
|
|
Oh my gosh. Here is the quote that made me respond in the first place:
"I also have 100% het pieds with the distinct markers and several that could be either 66% or 50 % because they carry one or two of the markers but not all 3. So, you could have a het for pied that is either 66% or 50 % but it does not look 100% het."
It seems to me like you are saying here that 66% and 50% possible hets. carry one or two markers but that "actual" hets carry 3 markers.
And it seems to me that you are implying that you posses the ability to tell the difference between a het. and a 66% or 50% possible het by looking at them.
I am going to bow out of this discussion now because it seems that it could go on forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 4:29:05 PM
|
|
Sigfried
|
Hey Paul,
I'll try to explain a little clearer than the rest of these folks.
If you bred a snake that is heterozygous piebald (having one pied allele and one normal allele) to another one that is heterozygous, then about one in four will be piebald, two will be heterozygous piebald, and one will be normal. *N=(dominant)normal allele p=(recessive)piebald allele
(although this is obviously not the correct way to preform a punnet square, I'm doing this for clarity purposes. Also, note that both the top and far left (not including the 'X') are the parents, and that the boxes with two letters in it are the children.)
Becase pp means homozygous for the piebald trait, we know that that particular snake will look piebald. Piebald is a recessive trait and is therefore covered up by the dominant normal. Notice the two 'Np' and one NN. 'Np' looks the same as 'NN' because the dominant normal trait covers the recessive piebald trait. The expression 66% is used because of the ones that look normal, 2 of the 3 are heterozygous piebald. If you had chosen one of the normal looking ones at random, then the chances of you choosing a piebald are 2 in 3 or 66%. 2 snakes ARE het, and one snake isn't (of the normal looking snakes. We can not include those that are piebald, because we know what their genetics for that specific trait is; homozygous.)
Now let's say that a piebald was bred to a normal:
Every snake from that clutch is het (Np) for piebald. No matter which one of the snakes you pick from this clutch, you have chosen a het piebald.
How about a het to a normal:
50% of the offspring are het. Now, every snake looks the same (obviously not identical, because they are each their own individual) so the chances that you pick a snake that is het piebald is 50%, and the chances you pick a normal is also 50%. The snake you choose is either het or not, but the probability that it is het is 50% (referring to this hypothetical clutch I just demonstrated).
Breeders should, and usually, specify whether or not the snake is a % chance het. If they sell it as a het pied, then that's what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 5:07:29 PM
|
|
Geckofactor
|
|
I don't think she ever said you could tell what % a het was by looking at markers what she said was she has 100% hets that carry markers and she is sure those are 100% hets and that she has other balls that may or may not be hets because they show some form of marker but she is not certain they are indeed hets. Meaning maybe she has a ball that has the bi lateral stripes but not a clear belly or a clear belly and no striping or whatever. I think you were kinda reaching by adding the supposed ability to predict things by markers or were just trying to invalidate things she said by adding a made up addition. This answers section is getting harder and harder to actually give people good information because people give information based on zero experience or t hey turn the thread into something it's not even about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Comment
|
3/3/2010 5:33:46 PM
|
|
meanderpaul
|
|
Sigfried that makes COMPLETE sense to me now i understand where the 66% came from when they start talking about it. i dont know about seeing recessive but that kinda contradicts my small amount of known biology and genetics from classes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assisted Answer
|
3/3/2010 5:40:52 PM
|
|
aSnakeLovinBabe
|
I have never denied the existence of markers that -sometimes- correlate with certain morphs. But I will never, ever trust them as they will never be a *for sure* method of determining the genotype of an animal. The only way to do that, is to breed it. Sure, you can use them to decide which snakes to hold back, if it makes you feel better about the choices, I don't see a problem with that. But I mean, if a marker is 100%, all of the time, that's actually making it more of an incomplete dominance thing, isn't it? Most of the morphs that hobbyists commonly call codominant are actually incomplete dominant, but it's something I gave up on people with, a long time ago. (Along with he fact that the pronounciation of Leucistic is Loo-kis-tic and NOT Loo-sis-tic even though I am the one who gets the weird looks for saying it the right way) Take the Roswell Boa morph (I covet these)... the "hets" as some people call them look *sort of* normal but have a weird appearance to their pattern and tail. So why do people call them het for Roswell? I['m sorry, it's one of my pet peeves, drives me insane.
The only reason I understand this stuff is because of some college textbooks on the subject I was once given, and the fact that all I did for a few years straight was read about genetics, in books, online, everywhere I could find because I knew that in order to be an extremely successful snake keeper it's a skill I would have to acquire.
It boils down to, everyone in here, has all said the same exact thing, just in their own context and it's coming off wrong to everyone else.
For the record, I at once found this to be a good read, even though I kind of already knew the stuff, it's still a great refresher, if you enjoy reading up on this kind of thing:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Understanding-Reptile-Color-and-Correct-Color-Terminology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 7:11:53 PM
|
|
Sigfried
|
Perhaps 'pied markers' are their own trait, or perhaps close together on the chromosome making them linked genes, and therefore it is more common to see markers on individuals with a piebald gene but still is possible to see this gene expressed in individuals without the piebald gene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assisted Answer
|
3/3/2010 8:47:27 PM
|
|
Sigfried
|
Blah, nevermind. That's another discussion for another day. There are many possible possibilities for the 'het. pied markers', but the one thing that is certain is that they do not define whether or not an individual is het piebald.
So, to sum it up:
You do not have a yellowbelly, and you have a het pied. (if not, let out the rage on the breeder you bought it from) And, yes. It is possible to have a yellowbelly het. pied. In fact, here's a yellowbelly piebald (aka: Pumpkin Pied) :
http://www.jkobylkareptiles.com/snake_room.php?id=22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 10:06:53 PM
|
|
shellboa
|
|
I think that for the basis of this question Shannon is right, you won't know anything until you breed it, markers or no markers and that it is not a yellow belly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/3/2010 10:43:07 PM
|
|
aSnakeLovinBabe
|
"Perhaps 'pied markers' are their own trait, or perhaps close together on the chromosome making them linked genes, and therefore it is more common to see markers on individuals with a piebald gene but still is possible to see this gene expressed in individuals without the piebald gene."
I could KISS you right now. that is EXACTLY what I have been trying to convey for a looong time but always had trouble saying it. haha....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Comment
|
3/3/2010 11:04:10 PM
|
|
meanderpaul
|
|
i should be getting infomation like photos on his parents so i have a better idea of what i have. thanks for giving me a crash course in genetics and the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
3/10/2010 7:46:51 AM
|
|
Sparkle
|
|
Wow, I just learned a LOT. Including the fact that I will NEVER dabble in ball python morphs! LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
9/16/2010 2:22:50 AM
|
|
CrEYEhavok
|
|
I know nobody has posted to this since March but as I was laughing to myself I couldn't resist----- The % is for each individual egg.. not the clutch. The square represents the possible results for each individual egg. You can have an albino to het lay 4 eggs and get zero albinos.. you can have a het to het lay 10 and get 10 albinos, not likely to happen but possible. .. " it is the chances of whther or not the offsrpring can carry the genetics that is either a 50% chance or a 66% chance again based on the number of offspring produced"-- false statement.. 66% represents het to het breeding because each individual normal looking hatchling had a 66% chance of grabbing that gene .. REGARDLESS of clutch size.. 50% is het to normal.. again each snake had a 50% chance of getting the gene.. EACH SNAKE.. whether 2 or 20.. Thank you for the entertainmnet.. and no it's not a yellowbelly possibly a het pied if the breeder was honest..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Comment
|
9/16/2010 11:34:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Comment
|
9/16/2010 11:36:20 PM
|
|
CrEYEhavok
|
|
Have you found a girl for your boy yet? The pieds are one of the best morphs out there, and money wise, are still holding decent value. We are hoping to get some pieds this up coming season if we can get our girl up a couple hundred grams. I hope this thread didn't scare you aware from breeding. It can be quite rewarding, and I'm not talking about money here. It's really a great feeling to see one of your beautiful girls dropping eggs and then about 2 months later seeing those little heads pop out. If you have any questions let me know I love helping people get into this stuff and I'm not gonna tell you that I'm an expert and that I have "celebrity" friends but I do know what I'm talking about, for the most part..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Comment
|
9/17/2010 9:48:11 AM
|
|
meanderpaul
|
|
hes not quite large enough yet to breed but i have a large female that is ready to breed everything is waiting on him to grow. im in no way scared away from this just slowly waiting for the time to do it. my boy is about 200 off of size so im hoping in a few months he will be ready (im a dreamer). i currently have a 1400-1500 gram girl in a tank right now and my girlfriend is hoping to breed her corns later this year into next.
|
|
|
|
|