Michael Cole is a genuine guy and knows his sh!t. When it comes to breeding balls he does it right. However, I can't help but generally disagree with the the statement "that if nature tells them they are ready they will go, nature says they are not ready they will not go." I disagree with the STATEMENT, not Michael Cole. I have several reasons for this, however. My first example is dogs -- breeders and puppy mills. Female dogs can be over-bred to death. Yes, actually breed to death, I've seen it happen; too many litters in so many years can kill. Also, I've seen dogs get Pyometra, and the owners's just treat rather than remove the uterus in order to keep breeding them for profit. Should the dog breed after a bought of Pyo? Is that "nature?" No. Nature said it should have killed her.
(SIDE NOTE: Spay your female dogs. 45% of all un-spayed females will get Pyo by age 8. Pyometra is an infection of the uterus, it fills up with puss, and toxins leak out into your dog and shut the dog down, essentially. Usually fatal if not treated within 5-7 days.)
However, the greatest argument against this would be that mammals are different than reptiles. You are absolutely right. However, it comes to question why we give males breaks in between rotations. It's because we know male balls will breed to death. They will breed non-stop if given the opportunity. They can die from the stress the exhaustion of it. Is this "nature?" No. We give these animals a captive, closed-in environment. We put them in with the female in a small space and pretty much say "GO." It's not like the wild or true nature where they have space to roam and a place to slither away.
My point is that because an animal breeds does not mean that it is okay because "naturally" they wouldn't do it if they shouldn't. Animals will breed whether it is good or bad for their general health.
That was just my opposition to that "thought." However, GloryHound really hit it on the nose. I don't think there's any clear black & white answer. There's too many factors, when considering age and weight and feeding habits. 1500 grams at 1.5 years old for a female is ideal. If you have a slow grower who is hundreds or grams smaller than this at 3 years-old, should she not breed? I don't think so. Do I think breeding a 1.5 year old at 1200 grams will hurt the female? I don't think so at all. It just comes down to, is it worth it? When you can just wait one more year (or till next October) and guarantee yourself that you'll get healthy eggs and more of them. Cuz quite frankly, if she has a hard time breeding this year, she's probably going to have to have the next season off to get her weight back, and you'll end up loosing anyway.
There was a post on Kingsnake recently where a gentleman bred and produced his Pieds. His female was 900 grams at over a year old. Is the female okay? Yes. Does that make it right? Not necessarily.
It;s just like Gloryhound said: with age, I think you have a little (I mean, a little) more leeway with weight. The younger, not so much, you probably just should hold out. However, I think feeding response should come into the equation as well. If you have a problem feeder at a boarder-line should-I-go-should-I-not weight, you'd have to consider how hard it's going to be to get her feeding again after laying, and how hard it will be to get her back up to weight.
Males are easier. I think if they are 6-9 months old, and producing sperm plugs, give it a go. You are responsible for giving him the breaks that he needs.
This is all just my two-cents. By all means, I don't claim to be some expert breeder. Actually I'm barely a breeder at all. Sorry for the speech.... just trying to contribute.
