Stillborn Question

Chinchilla & Hedgehog Pet Forum

Help Support Chinchilla & Hedgehog Pet Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
mishalaa

mishalaa

Irish Chinchilla
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,223
Location
Philipsburg, PA
In April of last year, I put a run of X-year animals together. In December, none of the females had produced nor showed any signs of pregnancy, so I pulled the male and put the females with other proven males just to get them producing.

Today, I found an expelled fetus for lack of a better term to describe it - it wasn't quite mummified but nor did it seem fully formed? - in the cage with one of those females. She is almost but not yet past the 111-day mark for pregnancy to the first male, and almost a month away from being pregnant to the second male. My question boils down to who is likely the father - the otherwise unproven first male (which this would mean he's not sterile?) or the second male, meaning this kit was expelled pre-term (has that happened to anyone else)?
 
I am guessing the only way you would be able to tell is 1) size of the fetus or 2) disect it and see what level of parts are formed, ie has eyes or fur that would make it X weeks old in development. I would probably judge on size. If its really small I would think male 2. Not sure there is any real way to tell without a disection or some kind of genetic assessment...But there's still the possibility that it could have died at precisely the same age for both males to be the father, meaning it was 30 days and died and passed weeks later or was 30 days and passed immediately for example. I'd like to hear what others think.
 
Well, it was partially chewed, but only what I think was the head. If there were bones/skull, they were squishy. Did not see any eyes, color was dark gray but couldn't tell if there was fur or not. The size was about the thickness of my pinky finger, not quite as long. Back legs and tail were stumpy, couldn't discern front legs. It looked pretty fetal - I'm pretty certain it was the second male. My records of her weight the last four months are consistent with being in the middle of a pregnancy - except for a sudden 23g drop from two Saturdays ago to this past Saturday. I just never heard of miscarriage like this, I thought aborted kits were either absorbed or mummified.
 
Chinchillas can abort a fetus vaginally. I've heard of it happening a couple times, but usually it's a result of high stress on the chinchilla. Typically, a chinchilla will reabsorb the fetus resulting in no evidence or a mummified kit (mummified kit is just a partially absorbed fetus), though as with all animals, there are anomolies where a chinchilla's body does not tell it to reabsorb which will end in a vaginally aborted fetus that the female will quickly destroy evidence of.
 
Thanks, Tab.

I went back to get another look at it, it was considerably less pliant than when I found it. Some of the shavings had dried on so I couldn't clean them all off. But, there were whiskers if not fur. Back feet were fully formed, still couldn't find front ones but they were probably there.

I did a cold switch back to Tradition feed two weeks ago. The feed I had switched them over to during the winter (a rabbit feed milled locally, used by Dennis Longenecker) was causing intermittent diarrhea in some of the animals, so I wanted them back on Tradition. No one has had soft poo since I switched, but I guess I lost a kit. =/

I am linking to a couple photos of the kit rather than attaching, for those who want to see.
Photo 1
Photo 2
 
I would assume that it was from the first male since it's near the 111 day mark for him. I've had a few of those pop out along with fully formed kits unfortunately. It looks pretty decayed, so it could have been dead for quite some time inside of the uterus.
 
March 25th would be 111 days from removing male #1. April 1st is 111 days after introducing male #2. She was 734g when I pulled male #1, 721 when I opened the hole for male #2. Got down to 704 in early January before started gaining. Was at 809g March 5th, 786g last Saturday.

Male #2 is a quick producer. The longest he has gone from introduction to conception in his previous 4 litters is 29 days - the shortest, 5 days.
 
Hmmm. I'm not sure you're ever going to know. Maybe talk to Dave or Jan at Nationals and see what they think?

My guess is male #2 since male #1 had been in with multiple mates and had not yet produced any kits. Do you have male #1 with any mates at this point just to see if it was just a fluke? Have you tried him in a paired breeding situation instead of a run?
 
That looks like a mummified kit which would be from the first male to be that large and that developed. I'd also assume you aren't really seeing legs and other things because of the time it was in the womb without her needing to spend energy on growing any other kits.
 
No, male #1 has been alone since I pulled him. I was intending to put the original line back together after his females littered with other males. I may start him in a pair before going back to full run.

I'll talk to Dave and Chris next weekend.

I thought a mummified kit would be, eh, dried up? Maybe I am associating it with mummy too much. ^^ But I would have thought the placenta would have been reabsorbed? She passed another one yesterday although it was more eaten when I found it.
 
It depends on how long the mother has been absorbing the fetus and how well her body absorbed it. Most are very dry, but those are usually the ones delivered with a healthy, live litter of kits so the mother's body was able to reabsorb the kits better. You also have to keep in mind that a mummified kit can stay in the mother's womb indefinitely so she could have become pregnant at any time with male #1 then started the reabsorbing process. It's even possible that those mummified kits were in there for too long and her body finally recognized them as impossible to completely reabsorb causing her to vaginally abort.

The placenta could well be from a second litter from the second male and that fetus may have been either too small for you to see or recognize as a kit or the mother ate it before you found it being that it was so small. The most development a kit goes through is the last two months.
 
The placenta was attached to the "mummy" though, umbilical cord and all. It's in the photo. Also the brain tissue which you can see at the top, where she had begun chewing the head, was pink and healthy looking. If this pregnancy were to the second male, she could have been as many as 90+ days along as they were introduced in December and he's a quick breeder, so I do not think this "mummy" too large or developed to have been his, considering you can feel kicks and even begin to see them that far along. I really wish it were the first male, I just have my doubts....
 
Last edited:
Based on what I've seen of mummified kits and pre-term aborted kits, the pictures you posted are of a mummified kit. It could be the second male, but more likely the kits are from the first male. Either way, you won't know 100% since there isn't DNA testing to see which male sired the kits.

I wouldn't consider the first male sterile after eight months in breeding though, especially since he is also larger. Larger size in chinchillas usually just means they'll take a little longer to start.
 
I had a little mummified kit that was born maybe three months ago. The little thing was extremely dessicated but attached to a normal, healthy-looking placenta. It's very strange how sometimes the mother's body just doesn't know what's going on with the babies. In that case the mother continued to keep the placenta alive and living (so to speak) while the baby had been gone for a long time.

I don't know if it is the first or the second male. It could be either one! I am sorry you lost the little baby and had to see the results. :(
 
Yea, I guess I'll never know for sure.

Male #1 will be getting his girls back indefinitely, no matter how slow a breeder (or non-breeder) he is, I just wanted the girls to have their first litters before getting over 2 years old.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with mummies, it was helpful.
 
mishalaa said:
Yea, I guess I'll never know for sure.

Male #1 will be getting his girls back indefinitely, no matter how slow a breeder (or non-breeder) he is, I just wanted the girls to have their first litters before getting over 2 years old.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with mummies, it was helpful.
Click to expand...

Just a quick question, don't want to derail the thread, but I remember reading a few years ago that if females don't breed before 2 years that they won't...is this true?
 
No, sometimes they'll breed years later just out of the blue. It's just that as they get older often the likelihood of them producing goes down dramatically. It seems like they are at their most fertile right at a year old or so. Once they have a litter they will usually keep on having more litters without a problem. I like to have the girls in breeding by the time they are two or it's a greater risk that they won't have babies for me. (Although lately with things being how they are with rescues coming in I don't really mind so much that some of the girls won't be making babies...)

I almost forgot to add this... Sometimes the older chins will have complications when they have babies later than when they are maybe three or four years of age. Not all of them will have problems, but some breeders have experienced issues with the kits having problems or the mom's having problems with deliveries.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top