When and why did crickets become the go to feeder insects?

[The Snark]

I just thought of something. Remembered more precisely.
While putting together an import-export operation in Singapore I managed to get my mitts upon the port restrictions list. Singapore has, IMHO, the worlds largest parking lot: The waters off the south coast. Take the ferry to Tanjung Penang; ships at anchor as far as the eye can see stretching on south for about 20 miles. And the government maintains an updated list of which ships are allowed into port and under what conditions, depending on port of origin and ports of call along the way. Ships are listed from allowed to requires inspection to fumigation mandatory to simply not allowed.
If any operation keeps up with potential pest hazard importation it would be the Singapore government.
The down side is, in order to get your hands on that list it would probably require filling out several dozen forms for several dozen government offices with various waiting periods and fees and possibly dependent on the phases of the moon. And the list may be updated without warning at any time.
Not so fond memories of day after day trudging from office to office, slowly working my way through a paperwork blizzard, a very expensive quadra-lingual secretary in tow to aid me in wading through the morass.

 

[CladeArthropoda]

Or to sum up, crickets aren't considered invasive pests. I'd use Aus as a weathervane for the worldwide mindset.

Most roaches aren't invasive pests either. It's really one 5 species or so that regularly breed in houses. The vast majority of cockroaches would fare about as well in your house as a butterfly or grasshopper would.

 

[The Snark]

Most roaches aren't invasive pests either. It's really one 5 species or so that regularly breed in houses. The vast majority of cockroaches would fare about as well in your house as a butterfly or grasshopper would.

Sigh. There is more to disease transmission than the single species of roaches under the fridge.

Pub Med, abstract:
"Cockroaches are arthropod transmitters of disease, acting both as mechanical vectors and as reservoirs of pathogenic agents. It has been shown that cockroaches harbor and transmit, both in nature and under experimental conditions, about 40 species of bacteria, including at least 25 from the Enterobacteriaceae group that cause gastroenteritis in man. In addition, it has been established that these insects are intermediate hosts of pathogenic helminths, viruses, fungi, and protozoa. It is possible that cockroaches contribute to the transmission of Chagas' disease by feeding on triatomine vectors of that disease. There also are signs that substances produced by cockroaches are involved in certain allergic processes. The foregoing facts are sufficient to justify the immediate control and eradication of these insects whenever and wherever they constitute a threat to public health."

 

[CladeArthropoda]

"Cockroaches are arthropod transmitters of disease, acting both as mechanical vectors and as reservoirs of pathogenic agents. It has been shown that cockroaches harbor and transmit, both in nature and under experimental conditions, about 40 species of bacteria, including at least 25 from the Enterobacteriaceae group that cause gastroenteritis in man. In addition, it has been established that these insects are intermediate hosts of pathogenic helminths, viruses, fungi, and protozoa. It is possible that cockroaches contribute to the transmission of Chagas' disease by feeding on triatomine vectors of that disease. There also are signs that substances produced by cockroaches are involved in certain allergic processes. The foregoing facts are sufficient to justify the immediate control and eradication of these insects whenever and wherever they constitute a threat to public health."

Ok, but what species is this referring to? I highly doubt the normal, wild, non pest cockroaches that live in soil eating fruit or dead tree bark carry that many pathogens (at least not any more than the average insect).

 

[The Snark]

Ok, but what species is this referring to? I highly doubt the normal, wild, non pest cockroaches that live in soil eating fruit or dead tree bark carry that many pathogens

While you are researching that you might join the crowd of researchers that are attempting to categorize the boundaries between species, and the how, where and why the pathogens cross these boundaries. It of course needs to be taken into account some roach species carry pathogens like Salmonella, staphylococcus and streptococcus, but do not directly transmit them to humans. Rather they act as reservoirs, intermediate hosts passing the pathogens along to other animals like domestic dogs and cats.

It is simply a case of guilty until proven innocent and the roaches as a whole rarely are. You may draw a close analogy to the fallacy that was prevalent in the 1980's and early 1990s that AIDS was a disease confined almost entirely to homosexual men. Epidemiologists aren't about to make the same mistake with Blattodea.

 

[The Snark]

@CladeArthropoda I understand what you are presenting. Some roaches don't normally carry..., some roaches aren't normally found in...
I would refer you to the gross computer model that was ran. Earth in total annihilation. One animal and one micro-organism survives. Which? Blattodea infected with staphylococcus. The two most adaptable life forms on the planet.
Fallacy 1. Some roaches do not carry harmful bacterium. They are all capable of being carriers.
Fallacy 2. Some roaches do not invade human habitation. They all will. They are survivalists capable of extreme adaptation. One subspecies of roach was found in New York city with it's primary food source a certain type of insulation on wires commonly found in TV sets.

It is simply a case of better safe than sorry. Certain animals should never be transported across environmental barriers whether they are known to carry diseases or not.
A case of sound scientific epidemiology. We don't hunt anopheles. We don't hunt aedes. We hunt their environments, trying to work with nature in containment. Much the same as fighting a brush fire. Putting the wet stuff on the red stuff is ideal, but is seldom practical. Thus we fight wildland fires by restricting their environment.

 

[Chris WT]

Perhaps because the Common Cricket has become naturalized as a species but cant cause too much harm if released because they can't compete with our native larger Field Crickets.

 

[Salmonsaladsandwich]

Do tarantulas that refuse to eat roaches refuse B. lateralis and similar species, or just blaberids such as dubias? Dubias and their ilk are terrible feeders due to their inconvenient body shape and habit of burrowing and lying still for extended periods of time, but lateralis and other fast- moving, non- burrowing roaches are quite similar to crickets in most ways.

 

[CladeArthropoda]

Fallacy 1. Some roaches do not carry harmful bacterium. They are all capable of being carriers.
Fallacy 2. Some roaches do not invade human habitation. They all will. They are survivalists capable of extreme adaptation. One subspecies of roach was found in New York city with it's primary food source a certain type of insulation on wires commonly found in TV sets.

1. SOME cockroaches can carry pathogens harmful to humans. Most don't.
2. No, they will not. Madagascar hissing cockroaches are about as fit to live in your house as a monarch butterfly. Not all cockroaches are equal when it comes to adaptability. Likewise, some species of crickets can and will infest homes when given the chance, and spread many pathogens of their own. The ONLY reason infestations aren't as severe as cockroaches are because of their egg laying needs.

It is simply a case of guilty until proven innocent and the roaches as a whole rarely are. You may draw a close analogy to the fallacy that was prevalent in the 1980's and early 1990s that AIDS was a disease confined almost entirely to homosexual men. Epidemiologists aren't about to make the same mistake with Blattodea.

That is a terrible analogy.

I would refer you to the gross computer model that was ran. Earth in total annihilation. One animal and one micro-organism survives. Which? Blattodea infected with staphylococcus. The two most adaptable life forms on the planet.

I would like a link to this as this sounds like complete bull. You can't just say "if there was a total annihilation, then x would survive" It depends on how it happened where the epicenter of the even took place.

 

[Introvertebrate]

Do tarantulas that refuse to eat roaches refuse B. lateralis and similar species, or just blaberids such as dubias? Dubias and their ilk are terrible feeders due to their inconvenient body shape and habit of burrowing and lying still for extended periods of time, but lateralis and other fast- moving, non- burrowing roaches are quite similar to crickets in most ways.

Some folks have better luck with lats than dubias, because they run instead of hide. Having said that, I also get the sense that some Ts won't take any roaches. This comes from posts I've read here on the board.

 

[The Snark]

@CladeArthropoda I suggest you set out to change all the laws restricting the movement of cockroaches. A nice project that should keep you busy for quite some time.

Now, we both have agendas. Mine is in the health and hygiene field, yours is apparently in protection and promotion of cockroaches. The jury has returned quite some time ago on the health issues. It is now up to you to establish your case.

BTW, hissers are restricted from transportation in certain areas, and are known pathogen hosts.

Now, we are approaching this from opposite ends of the spectrum. You are presenting cockroaches can be benign under circumstance A, B, C and so on. I approach is from the medical aspect. A vast database of known pathogens and their established sources.

Anyone can refute the hazard of virtually any animal in the world. However, the medical databases are in laboratory established facts. Be it roaches or whatever, arguing with scientific findings won't get you anywhere. You need to refute the findings themselves, not the health workers that simply go by those findings.

And for the bull, that was from a combined effort by two grad classes for an entire year, computer technology and biology classes. Several hundred students came up with a framework which narrowed down the adaptability and environment conducive for animals to survive. Simply put, which animal and which micro-organism has the widest possible choice of environments to thrive in.
Not really rocket science. You have staph on your body and every surface in your home. Certain cockroaches can entirely alter their preferred habitat in 1 to 10 generations, with 3 being the average.

I reiterate. Arguing with health care workers is futile. You have to change the scientifically established norms that they go by.
For example, I tossed Gromphadorhinini into the medical dtabase. It shot back 14 molds associated with the animal which present a hazard to humans.

 

[CladeArthropoda]

BTW, hissers are restricted from transportation in certain areas, and are known pathogen hosts.

Really now? By that logic, why don't we just ban ALL animals? Why don't we just ban dogs, crickets, everything? Because the threat posed by Madagascar Hissing cockroaches is no more than any other insect and certainly much less than house crickets. Of course every fucking animal is going to have SOME associated pathogens. But it's weather or no these pathogens are actually a significant threat that we decide weather the animal should be allowed.

And for the bull, that was from a combined effort by two grad classes for an entire year, computer technology and biology classes. Several hundred students came up with a framework which narrowed down the adaptability and environment conducive for animals to survive. Simply put, which animal and which micro-organism has the widest possible choice of environments to thrive in.
Not really rocket science. You have staph on your body and every surface in your home. Certain cockroaches can entirely alter their preferred habitat in 1 to 10 generations, with 3 being the average.

I like how you completely danced around my point. Not all cockroaches are equal. Something that one cockroach can handle would be fatal to another.

 

[The Snark]

@CladeArthropoda Before we go any father, could you please familiarize yourself with worst case hypothetical scenarios and risk assessment in epidemiology.

 

[CladeArthropoda]

@CladeArthropoda Before we go any father, could you please familiarize yourself with worst case hypothetical scenarios and risk assessment in epidemiology.

How about you stop dancing around all my points and please address them all.

 

[The Snark]

Further discussion seems pointless. Consider starting a new thread: Roaches are Wonderful or similar.

 

[The Snark]

Further discussion seems pointless. Consider starting a new thread: Roaches are Wonderful or similar.

 

[Ilich]

I assume, that for the most part, the most simple answer is around the fact that cockroaches have a stigma around them. Where with most people they aren't socially accepted and instead scoffed at, much likes spiders, and grasshoppers are merely regarded as tiny things that hop.

 

[CladeArthropoda]

We can safely assume you have an agenda and wish to debate. Several people have disagreed or expressed cricket preference for various reasons and you have debated what was stated. So you are out to prove a point. According to X, roaches are Y. Very well. Point taken. You weren't out to get a question answered, you started this thread to promote your opinion about roaches

I don't have an agenda. I posted this to have a question answered. You would be correct if I disagreed or ignored people stating the benefits of crickets over cockroaches, but I didn't. I did in fact acknowledge what people where saying.

Also, some of initial "assumptions" are correct, as roaches are easier to manage than crickets because they are less jumpy. And they are just as easy to feed as they eat largely the same stuff.

You sir, are shoving words into my mouth.

And to address all your points, roaches are considered problematic for numerous reasons. Not my opinion. Start with taking it up with the numerous countries, locales and municipalities that have banned them. Ask them their rationale. Then you have been given several reasons by others here why they aren't preferable feeders. Instead of debating, lend their opinions credence.
Further discussion seems pointless. Consider starting a new thread: Roaches are Wonderful or similar.

You still haven't given any reasons.

 

[Salmonsaladsandwich]

Some folks have better luck with lats than dubias, because they run instead of hide. Having said that, I also get the sense that some Ts won't take any roaches. This comes from posts I've read here on the board.

Well has anyone specifically said that their T's refuse lats in favor of crickets? Dubias are by far the most well- known feeder roach and many people are unaware of other feeder species.

 

[Twichlove]

Dubia roaches are an excellent feeder roach, they are low fat and also rich in nutritional values. However some tarantulas won't be able to immediately figure out how to get to the soft bottom of the roach, with my tarantulas they'd fiddle around with it when hungry, and then leave it alone. Until i flipped it over that is, as soon as the soft belly was revealed she went nuts over it.
I suppose some keepers would at first glance buy the initially cheaper Crickets rather than the Dubias which aren't as common in pet food stores and are more expensive initially.
(I know that they can be semi easy to breed and you can get a massive colony of Dubia Roaches, but not all people are able to accept the fact that they can possibly spread a wide variety of diseases if not bred and cared for cautiously.)