Well, I'm on my way to New Orleans, so will be off the ether for a week or
so, but don't think that lets any of you off the hook!
 
I was asked a rather simple question via e-mail, and as simple questions go,
this one was too hard to answer.  I was asked, what are the best five
books/articles/magazines a ferret owner could own.  I know my opinions, but
they are biased because of my personal writing expectations, and natural
history knowledge.  So I am putting it to the members of the list; what are
your favorite five books/articles/magazines?  If you post them to me as well
as the FML, I'll count them up and post the results, with comments, as "List
Favorites," but I already get 25 or more e-mails per day, so I won't respond
to each list; I'll just count them.
 
I don't want to accidentally influence anyone, so I will post my personal
list when I post the others. So send the lists in!
 
After I had described all my traveling this summer, it was brought to my
attention that I could make a cool show for the FMLers to enjoy by simply
taking a few pictures and posting them on the web as a sort of "Vacation
Slide Show." (As if data gathering is a vacation....I'll have you know that
I have blisters on the thumb of my caliper hand, and the index finger is
quite sore from pressing "enter.").  So I will take lots of pictures of the
FMLers I visit, and build a web page to show them.  You will then be able to
connect a face to the name.
 
So then I thought, why not just let those with access to a camera send me
their pics, and I'll scan them and post them as well?  What I don't want is
ferret pictures (well, yes, I want them, but not for this) unless a clear
and visible face (i.e., owner) is in the picture with the fuzzbutt.  When I
get back from New Orleans, I'll post a picture of myself, with my wild thick
and flowing hair, so you can all see why my mother slapped me at birth (I'm
NOT ugly, just esthetically disadvantaged...).
 
I recieved about ten e-mails asking what I thought about the debate about
small vs.  large breeders.  What a can-o-worms.  You're asking a guy that
can't tell a panda from a sable....well, ok, I can tell that, but you get
the idea; I know lots about the ferret, but not much about the breeders
involved with ferrets.  I know that large breeders, those that sell to
research institutions, want a product (the ferret) that is healthy,
genetically similar, and having no genetic nor inbreeding faults that might
screw up a million dollar experiment.  (Research scientists hate that).  And
they love the ferret; just scan "Biological Abstracts" and you will see
thousands of entries regarding the ferret, mostly research oriented.  So
someone like MF has to produce a healthy ferret that can fit the bill.
Presumably they do, if sales are an indication of that type of success.
 
The debate seems to be about the size of the gene pool.  A gene pool is
defined as the complete genetic information possessed by a population of
breeding individuals (neutered animals are not part of the gene pool).  The
pool as be as small as a single breeding pair, or as large as an entire
species, depending on how you define the population.  The situation is
sometimes complicated in domesticated species whos breeding is controlled by
humans, such as in ferrets.  For the sake of discussion, let's assume the
population consists of those animals available for breeding to a specific
breeder, such as Pam Grant or Marshall Farms.
 
Generally, I think most hobby or small breeders have a larger actual gene
pool than most lab-animal oriented breeders, especially those like Pam Grant
and Bill Killian who have broadened their genetic base to include
non-American ferrets.  (This in *NO WAY* implies those breeders who have not
done so have an inferior product, nor does it imply I think they should
introduce new stock, nor do I endorse the people mentioned.  I am simply
stating they are good examples of a broad genetic base, that's all).  Think
about it; for large commerical companies trying to produce a product that
reacts similarly (for research purposes) you basically need a similar
genetic make-up.  So you cross and recross cousins to eliminate inbreeding
problems, but to also reduce the genetic variablity of the basic stock.  So
even though they have thousands of breeders, the gene pool is quite limited.
Ultimately, they can become virtually identical, which would be very good
for research.
 
Without getting into extremely boring math or discussions of gene flow, the
reason the pool is limited relates to breadth, not depth.  In other words,
it is determined by the amount of genetic variablity present.  So, if two
populations have 100 individuals, and pop A has 16 genes for fur color, and
pop B has only 5, then pop A has a larger gene pool (assuming all other
genes follow the same trend).  Most of the small breeders I know produce
kits that are fairly easy to distinguish from each other, even when very
young; a fairly good indication of genetic variability.  And what is the
danger of low genetic variablity?  Ask any farmer who lost an entire crop of
corn or wheat to one specific pest.  How many Irish died during the potato
famine?  Lack of variability renders the species to a high risk of
extinction due to a lack of gene-borne resistance.
 
So my response to the debate is, its not the number of breeding animals that
determines the size of the genetic pool, but the amount variablity present.
If you are curious about the degree of variability present, ask to look at
the entire litter; excluding the occasional twins, they should be
distinguishable for the most part.  The curious part about this debate is
that you can have a large gene pool, and still be guilty of inbreeding, or
not inbreed at all, but have a small gene pool.  To increase the size of the
gene pool (and gene flow as well) get animals from as many different places
you can, and introduce new stock each generation.  Doing this, even small
breeders can have a diverse and healthy stock.
 
See you in a week
 
Bob and the 13 Darlins not at Nawleans.
[Posted in FML issue 1533]