I have see some interesting and valid points, and off the top of my head, will attempt to cover what I believe has been asked. Firstly, I would like to reiterate that the term ‘Scarffing’ is not really relevant in this context, and even in other threads, the term has been mis or ill-defined. The main misconception regarding this study is that we are attempting to grow the animals as fast as possible. This is not the case. As is outlined in the CARA abstract, the animals were maintained at 30 degrees and fed every 7 days. This can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be seen as powerfeeding, ‘Scarffing’ or force-feeding. As anyone who has bred or raised hatchling pythons would know, these are moderate temperatures and moderate feeding intervals. As an example, when the animals were new hatchlings, this required the removal of limbs from some of the pinkies (normally just the tail and a foot) to reduce the weight down to 30 % of the bodyweight of the snake. Overfeeding? Maintain them at 35 degrees and feed to refusal every 3-4 days and you may have a point (but who knows with no data). Furthermore, the graph of the high and low percentile pythons (the fastest growing 5 in the high intake treatment and slowest growing 5 in the high intake treatment) highlights this fact – feeding was voluntary, and under these conditions, was generally self limiting. Down to roughly 16% intake of bodyweight weekly. The differing weights of animals at 12 months of age tell the story.
But the notion of “my animals are growing too fast” I find unusual. Who has ever heard that before? Give me an example? In fact, normally the opposite is true – and there are infinite examples. What we aim to do with most animals in captivity is to maintain health and provide conditions which are ideal for growth and development to maturity, and reproduction. Other factors are similarly important (welfare, psychological health etc) but in this case, we are primarily discussing physical development. And so far, I cannot see any reasons why we would not wish to learn more about the animals we are interested in / obsessed with.
The “that level of feeding is un-natural” philosophy is also strange and largely irrelevant. Maintaining health, welfare and minimising mortality are the primary initial objectives of keeping animals in captivity. We have successfully eliminated predation, most diseases and parasitism from the captive environment, so why should we not attempt to provide optimal levels of nutrition?
One positive point is that most people who have commented seem to have genuine concern for the welfare of their animals, which is good to see. Similarly, this is what this study aims to do – provide information which can be used to improve the health and welfare of pythons in captivity.
