Animal-appropriate housing of ball pythons (Python regius) — Behavior-based evaluation of two types of housing systems

Considering animal welfare, animals should be kept in animal-appropriate and stress-free housing conditions in all circumstances. To assure such conditions, not only basic needs must be met, but also possibilities must be provided that allow animals in captive care to express all species-typical behaviors. Rack housing systems for snakes have become increasingly popular and are widely used; however, from an animal welfare perspective, they are no alternative to furnished terrariums. In this study, we therefore evaluated two types of housing systems for ball pythons (Python regius) by considering the welfare aspect animal behavior. In Part 1 of the study, ball pythons (n = 35) were housed individually in a conventional rack system. The pythons were provided with a hiding place and a water bowl, temperature control was automatic, and the lighting in the room served as indirect illumination. In Part 2 of the study, the same ball pythons, after at least 8 weeks, were housed individually in furnished terrariums. The size of each terrarium was correlated with the body length of each python. The terrariums contained substrate, a hiding place, possibilities for climbing, a water basin for bathing, an elevated basking spot, and living plants. The temperature was controlled automatically, and illumination was provided by a fluorescent tube and a UV lamp. The shown behavior spectrum differed significantly between the two housing systems (p < 0.05). The four behaviors basking, climbing, burrowing, and bathing could only be expressed in the terrarium. Abnormal behaviors that could indicate stereotypies were almost exclusively seen in the rack system. The results show that the housing of ball pythons in a rack system leads to a considerable restriction in species-typical behaviors; thus, the rack system does not meet the requirements for animal-appropriate housing.

The ball python (Python regius) has been a popular terrarium-housed exotic pet for more 43 than 30 years (DE VOSJOLI 1990

190
Ball python (Python regius) 191 Thirty-five ball pythons (Python regius) were used for this study (see Table 1). Twenty-five of    Table 2). It does not include interactions with 282 other individuals because all pythons were single housed during the whole study. Feeding 283 behavior is also excluded because feeding was a planned event that the individual could not 284 control. The ethogram lists only "drinking" because the snakes could not control the timing of feeding. water surface in the water bowl, and water is sucked in through chewing movements.

317
Other behaviors 318 "Other behaviors," in contrast to the above-described ones, are not interconnected.

319
"Yawning" is often seen after feeding but can also occur spontaneously. Another typical 320 behavior is the crawling alongside the barriers of the enclosure whilst "pushing the mouth 322 strong enough to lead to temporary deformation of the mouth. "Wobbling" and "stargazing"

350
In this study, we differentiated 17 behaviors (see Table 2). Defensive or aggressive behavior 351 (A) was never shown, nor was "moving backward" (L2). "Moving the head" (L6) was never 352 shown as a separate movement but could be observed associated with other behavior 353 components. Table 3 lists the relative frequency of all behaviors displayed in a 24-hour 354 period in the rack system and the terrarium.
355 For eight behaviors, we found a statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference between the 359 housing systems. The behavior "crawling forward" (L1) was the most frequent locomotion 360 behavior in both housing systems. It occurred significantly (p < 0.05) more often in the 361 terrarium (AUC = 21.6) than in the rack system (AUC = 9.7). "Pushing the mouth against a 362 barrier" (O2) occurred significantly (p < 0.05) more often in the rack system (AUC = 15.9) 363 than in the terrarium (AUC = 0.1). The pythons spent a large part of the day resting (C3-C5).

366
"Basking" under the UV lamp (C1), "climbing" (L4), and "bathing" (C2) occurred only in the 367 terrarium. These behaviors could not occur in the rack system because of its structural 368 design. "Exploration behavior directed at the camera" (E), although possible in the terrarium, 369 was shown only in the rack system (AUC = 0.9).

370
We also found daytime-specific differences within and between the housing systems. In the By contrast, "stretched-out resting outside of the hiding place" (C5; see Figure 9) in the 424 terrarium was observed more frequently during the activity phase (P1: AUC = 18.9) and the 425 nighttime phase (P2: AUC = 14.6) and less frequently during the early day (P3: AUC = 5.6).

426
The frequency of this comfort behavior in the rack system during P1 and P2 427 (AUC = 11.6 ± 2.6) was also higher than during P3 (AUC = 5.6).

457
Locomotion behaviors such as climbing and burrowing were exclusively shown in the 458 terrarium; they could not be expressed in the rack system due to spatial and structural 459 conditions. The ball python is considered a ground-dwelling snake (SCHMIDT 1994).

460
However, it may occasionally crawl onto a termite mound or climb within waist-high branch 461 wood. An animal-appropriate accommodation must therefore enable the snake to move in 462 three-dimensional space. Burrowing and bathing were shown less often, but they are 463 important components of the behavioral repertoire and must be facilitated for the ball python.

464
Although bathing, a type of comfort behavior, plays only a minor role in the natural behavior 465 of the ball python, this snake species has access to water in its natural habitat. Therefore, a 466 large enough water basin should be provided in a housing system. healthy. However, the behavior of the herein studied pythons clearly showed that UV light is

514
The non-occurrence of defensive behavior in our study may be explained by the lack of a 515 stimulus (predator, disturbance). The same applies to backward movement, which usually is 516 observed when snakes are threatened and keep their gaze on the source of the threat while 517 they retreat. In the present study, a threat stimulus was not given.

518
In summary, our study results show that based on the assessed aspects, the housing in a 519 rack system cannot be considered an animal-appropriate accommodation for the ball python.

520
The only animal-based advantage of rack housing is the possibility for complete and fast 521 cleaning. This aspect can be useful for keeping sick animals or facilitating quarantine 522 conditions. Further aspects such as the keeping of many animals in small spaces or the time-523 saving maintenance of these animals are in no case in the interest of the snakes. These 524 conditions are rather reminiscent of intensive mass husbandry, in which economic aspects 525 are considered to be of higher priority than animal welfare.

526
Our results do not support the argument that the ball python accepts feed more readily in a 527 rack system than in a terrarium. With the rack system, we initially encountered difficulties in 528 feed acceptance, but these were most likely due to the kind of offered feed. Because the 529 snakes in both housing systems did not differ in their readiness to eat, the reason for

542
The statement of McCURLEY (2011) that illumination is a stressor for ball pythons could be 543 disproved in our study. If light had caused stress in the snakes, they would not have exposed 544 themselves to it because they always had the possibility to seek shelter in a hiding place.