• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Too early for double pinks?

I like Matthew's (Blue Apple Herps) simple formula. No messing with scales. However, a lot of people, especially when doing something new, like to have the instructions carefully spelled out for them in detail, in the way the Munson plan is written.

Comparing the 2 does bring up the question of whether a snake with a relatively short, fat body-shape can eat more than a more slender one that weighs the same. I'd assume a snake with a bigger girth would show less of a lump. On the Munson plan, the 2 snakes would stay on the same size meal regardless of body type, while on Matthew's plan, the girthy one would move up in size sooner.

To get to the OP... the Munson plan specifies "-When they're on single pinks (2-3g), I feed every 5-6 days. (Snake = 4-15g)" I interpret that to mean the OP's 8g snake can eat 2-3 grams of pinkie, so it should be able to eat 2 of the 1g pinks (assuming those are accurate weights). Obviously, we do need to use a little common sense here, though. I'm pretty sure no one would recommend feeding a 3g pink to a 4g snake, even though that is within the ranges in the Munson plan.

If the OP ever said how often he is feeding his snake, I missed it. If you are feeding once a week, you could step up to 1 pink every 5 days, and that might be best until the snake grows a little more. As Wade pointed out, there really is no harm to sticking with 1 pink for a while longer. On the other hand, increasing the size of the meal too much or too soon is potentially dangerous to your snake.
 
I like Matthew's (Blue Apple Herps) simple formula. No messing with scales. However, a lot of people, especially when doing something new, like to have the instructions carefully spelled out for them in detail, in the way the Munson plan is written.

One must also consider how people's minds work. For me, 150% (1.5X) of the snakes largest girth spot is rather vague. My visual approximators are probably not as keen as others', and I have trouble visualizing that. I prefer hard facts.

By girth, are we referring to circumferance or diameter? In other words, if I wanted to be scientific about the whole 1.5X thing, would I measure the snakes circumferance or diameter at its widest point, and then compare that to the same measurement for the mouse?
 
Would the OP be better off feeding a single pinky every 5 days for now? And then transition to two pinkies every 7 days?

When the snakes are so small usually you feed them every 5 days.

If I were you I will start to feed my snake every 5 days 1 pinks and I will monitoring the weight. after a few feedings and grams I will try to find bigger pinks or give him 1 pinks and half.

But I'm not an expert.

As Wade sad, the worst thing is a regurgitation!
 
One must also consider how people's minds work.

That's part of what I was trying to say... different people will like different feeding formulas. Even if the "different" formulas are essentially the same, but it is just described differently.


For me, 150% (1.5X) of the snakes largest girth spot is rather vague. My visual approximators are probably not as keen as others', and I have trouble visualizing that. I prefer hard facts.

By girth, are we referring to circumferance or diameter? In other words, if I wanted to be scientific about the whole 1.5X thing, would I measure the snakes circumferance or diameter at its widest point, and then compare that to the same measurement for the mouse?

That's a very good question. Technically, girth is a measure of circumference. However, when I've read the feeding recommendations of 1.5x the snakes largest girth, I'd actually mentally pictured something that would be more accurately described as "1.5x the diameter at the point where the snake has the largest girth."

Now you've got me curious about the math. If you take a snake that has a 1 inch diameter, it's circumference is 3.14 inches. 1.5x the diameter is a mouse 1.5 inches in diameter. But, 1.5x the circumference is 4.71 inches in circumference. If you go to this handy calculator (http://math.about.com/library/blcirclecalculator.htm), you'll see that 1.5 inches in diameter IS 4.71 inches in circumference. So it doesn't matter, but it is probably easier to eyeball the diameter than the circumference.

Now, in order to pretend I haven't totally hijacked this thread for a math lesson, I'll restate that I think the best plan for now may be to feed more frequently, depending on how frequently the snake is already being fed.
 
That's part of what I was trying to say... different people will like different feeding formulas. Even if the "different" formulas are essentially the same, but it is just described differently.




That's a very good question. Technically, girth is a measure of circumference. However, when I've read the feeding recommendations of 1.5x the snakes largest girth, I'd actually mentally pictured something that would be more accurately described as "1.5x the diameter at the point where the snake has the largest girth."

Now you've got me curious about the math. If you take a snake that has a 1 inch diameter, it's circumference is 3.14 inches. 1.5x the diameter is a mouse 1.5 inches in diameter. But, 1.5x the circumference is 4.71 inches in circumference. If you go to this handy calculator (http://math.about.com/library/blcirclecalculator.htm), you'll see that 1.5 inches in diameter IS 4.71 inches in circumference. So it doesn't matter, but it is probably easier to eyeball the diameter than the circumference.

Now, in order to pretend I haven't totally hijacked this thread for a math lesson, I'll restate that I think the best plan for now may be to feed more frequently, depending on how frequently the snake is already being fed.

Oh yeah, DUH! Diameter and circumferance are directly related.
 
my head hurts after reading all that math, I graduated so I don't have to do that anymore! haha.

but to clarify, I am feeding him one, 1g pink every five days right now, and have been doing so since I've gotten him.
 
Back
Top