Starving Snakes Eat Their Hearts Out

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/...als&guid=20070820110000&dcitc=w19-506-ak-0001


very intresting..

I think the scariest part of this article for me was this:

"For his study, McCue put 20 ball pythons, 22 ratsnakes and 20 western diamondback rattlesnakes through 168 days of starvation. Weight and other measurements were taken at regular intervals. After the 168 days, McCue chemically euthanized each snake and pureed it in a blender in order to better conduct chemical analysis."

He starved them and then pureed them? I hate to ask this, but was that absolutely necessary? I know there's no penalty for killing what people consider "nuisance species", but it seems he could have gotten the same results without killing them....

maybe it's just me.

I agree, it is sad they killed the poor snakes but thats science for you

No, not necessarily. I think there are a lot of scientists out there who can do good, productive research without killing their test subjects.... And speaking of productive research, why exactly do we need to know what happens when snakes starve? I'm sure there's some benefit somewhere, but maybe not at the expense of 62 snakes being starved for 168 days then being liquefied....

If UA works like Oklahoma State University, in order to carry out this research McCue would have had to obtain permission from a Research Animal Care and Use Committee. He would have to thoroughly outline his reasons for doing this research to the committee. My experience with the OSU ACUC is that they are generally VERY detail oriented and picky about what gets labeled as acceptable research. I doubt they would have approved it if there were any questions in the committee's minds that it was inhumane.

As stated in the article, snakes can naturally go up to two years without eating, so ~ 6 months isn't that bad. Also, the snakes weren't alive when they were "liquified," so it doesn't really matter what happened to the bodies at that point.

They probably didn't just stick the whole snake in a blender; my guess is they skinned/deboned/eviscerated the carcasses and blended each of the organs separately. They probably used a blender only to break down the organs into small pieces, and then used different chemicals to lyse the cells and extract DNA, proteins, and other "stuff" from the cells. Different chemical and enzymatical assays could then be run on the "cell stuff", and each of those tests would tell you different things about the cells that it came from. This, in turn, would tell a biochemist or physiologist very specific things about what was going on in the body at the time of death.

I'm not sure of all the reasons behind this study. Maybe it was just an attempt to better understand reptile metabolism. Knowing a snake's biochemical responses to starvation might lead to better veterinary care for snakes and other reptiles that won't eat, or aid in the understanding of other chemical pathways. Very little research has been done on reptiles in comparison to other classes of animals. Also, this might have had a military use (food deprivation survival for special forces?). Just some suggestions.

Excellent points Alicia!

I kinda figured they wouldn't throw live snakes in a kitchen blender (ha!) but I guess it just kinda struck me as a funny sentence.

I certainly hope there are strict standards for any research done on animals, and I'm sure UA wouldn't have allowed it if it were inhumane or cruel but I would just love to know the reasons for this study. I can't quite go for the 'food deprivation for soldiers' theory because we are so far apart from snakes - why not just study primates? And, for what seems like such a long and costly study, what would be the big payoffs for the captive herp industry? And then why study mostly venomous snakes? I'm really not saying there's anything sinister going on, and I'm totally for reptile research but it just seemed like an odd aspect to study. Maybe I'm just jaded, but it seems like any time the human species is involved, there's always an ulterior motive. Would just to hear how they sold this to someone.....

does that make sense?

Yeah, it makes sense. Like I said, I'm really not sure of the reasons why myself.

The military guess was because of the last sentence in the paragraph. I couldn't really see any other reason why people would need to combat food deprivation... unless we're talking about people starving in other countries... in which case it would be better to teach them how to grow/raise their own food than to spend money on research in order to tell them how to "handle their hunger" better. :main_huh: Wild animals wouldn't listen to research , and domestic animals shouldn't be intentionally fasted for long periods of time anyway. So who knows.

I personally think the most plausible reason would be to enhance the quality of veterinary care to reptiles. But I'm just guessing, like I said. The article seemed to be written mostly for shock value (the snakes were "chemically euthanized and pureed in a blender!" :stunned, so I wasn't surprised that it didn't have much "real" scientific information in it.

Venemous snakes... well, maybe someone on campus breeds them for venom research??? Big guess there, but a lot of animals are used for research based on availability.

Especially since the PETA people are so active and protest the use of animals in anything, anytime, animals in research are usually VERY closely regulated and monitored. While I think that it is extremely important that animals be treated humanely and respectfully in any situation, I also think that animal research is a quote unquote "necessary evil". There are some things that can't be tested or figured out without using a live subject of some sort. Human research is unacceptable, and human lives are always more important than animal lives... so some animals are sacrificed to save people and other animals. Remember, animal research saves animal lives, too!

As a vet student, one aspect of this issue sticks out to me in particular. PETA and other animal rights groups are currently trying to make it illegal to use live animals to teach veterinarians how to do surgical procedures. Most vet schools currently acquire dogs from certified research animal distributors. Third-year vet students, who already know most of the basic book knowledge needed as a vet and are learning clinical applications, will be allowed to perform surgeries on these dogs just like any other surgical procedure: full anesthesia, sterility, etc. However, after performing the procedures, the students are required by law to euthanize the dogs on the operating table - the dogs just never wake up. The reason for this is because some vet students will inevitably make mistakes as they initially learn surgery, and it is considered inhumane to the dogs to make them suffer from those mistakes. The sad part is, even if the student performed the procedure perfectly, the dog still has to be euthanized by law. But the law is in place to make sure that the dogs are treated humanely throughout the whole process.

PETA hates this because vet students are "killing healthy dogs," and for other typical animal rights reasons. However, I doubt any of these activists would like a newly graduated vet student to operate on their own little dog Fluffy. Eventually, vets have to start doing live surgery... there's no way around it. It makes a ton more sense to me to start them on dogs bred for research that will not have to suffer for mistakes made, than on a client's best friend. The dogs used in this type of research will help thousands of dogs, cats, and other animals that veterinarians will operate on later... their lives were not in vain. PETA just seems to lose sight of that, and of other common sense values, whenever it is convenient for their agenda.

Sorry about the book this has turned into! :main_rolleyes:

I suspect that the blending was done to allow chemicals to be extracted more easily for analysis. In looking for changes, they are going to want to know what changed in terms of physical size, but they are also going to want to analyze the chemical species that changed. They may also be looking for some hormone or enzyme that causes the other changes that they mentioned.

If a simple chemical is controlling the changes that allow a snake to tolerate fasting, then that chemical might be cheaper to give to people than large amounts of food. For instance, if there is a disaster and a large number of people are left sitting in shelters somewhere without food, we might be able to transport thousands of pounds of this chemical to them more easily than thousands of tons of food that they need. If the chemical doesn't go bad while food does go bad, the chemical might also remain available while food doesn't. While this solution seems harsh, the chemical might allow them to survive for a few weeks until the logistics of real food distribution can be re-established.


Bill