Are glowspot roaches good feeders?

[goliathusdavid]

oddly enough I think them being good feeders could bring good attention in the hobby/among hobbyist.

Yeah I really don't agree with that. If you're going to save a species its not by feeding it to other things. That's as ridiculous as saying further legalizing endangered species as pets is going to save them. While some species can be helped through sacrificing individuals for the benefit of the species as a whole (I'm thinking highly regulated trophy hunting here), I don't think this is an example of that.
This is really showing me how badly we need this species in institutions. Hobbyists who are truly dedicated to conservation don't feed off individuals of a species they are trying to conserve without a good reason. I recall Peter Clausen saying once that he would never let his herps taste Therea species, and they're doing fine in terms of conservation status. (And yes I know about their insanely long gestation and growth periods, but not the point I'm trying to make).
You want a soft bodied feeder? How about Blatta lateralis? I really don't buy the "nothing is as good for feeding as this extinct in the wild species" argument.

 

[Beetles]

Well just having institutions and really dedicated hobbyist will only help a species go so far if the point is to spread them around. If they are advertised as good feeders more would want to keep and breed them therefore advertising them to more people. I personally wouldn't feed them unless I had at least a few cultures over a hundred individuals. But the fact is most people aren't interested in a slightly expensive roach that is an okay display species if there isn't much other uses for it. Like feeding.

 

[goliathusdavid]

The point is conservation. Breeding, selling, and distribution in the hobby is ONE (occasionally problematic) way to do that. But advertising them as feeders is just going to attract people looking for feeders - not the people who actually care about and want to ensure the long term survival of this species. And frankly, I don't want to see an extinct in the wild species in the hands of people just looking to feed it to other things. Just as I don't want to see Amur tigers in the hands of people using them purely for entertainment.
That's not conservation. And conservation is what we should be doing. For pete's sake, it's in the name of the species.

 

[Hisserdude]

They may not be like Macropanesthia but an eight month growth period and four to five month gestation is still not exactly "prolific." And though they may be widespread I still wouldn't consider their global population to be high enough for an extinct in the wild species to justify feeding them off. An oversized colony can just as easily be solved through separation and\or selling. Is it incredibly unlikely that this species will die out of culture? Yes. Will I also not feel totally comfortable about its long term fate until I see it in more institutions? Also yes.

I think both of those development times are sped up a bit if kept around 88F° 24/7... But regardless, even Orin Mcmonigle suggested using them as feeders for Amblypygids I believe, in one of his books. Once the numbers build up enough, you end up with more than you know what to do with, not everyone has room for splitting, the demand isn't so high anymore that everyone is clamouring to buy them, (though I do think the market price should be dropped as a result to get more customers), so I still see absolutely no reason not to use them as occasional feeders, so long as you're not feeding so many that you're putting your colony at risk.

 

[Hisserdude]

I recall Peter Clausen saying once that he would never let his herps taste Therea species, and they're doing fine in terms of conservation status. (And yes I know about their insanely long gestation and growth periods, but not the point I'm trying to make).

Actually Therea bernhardti and olegrandjeani are extremely prolific despite their long development times, (which can be shortened noticeably if you keep them very warm and feeds them lots of protein), and thus I do know people who use them as feeders... There's actually an article about their feeder use in the ACS publication #2.

 

[Beetles]

Actually Therea bernhardti and olegrandjeani are extremely prolific despite their long development times, (which can be shortened noticeably if you keep them very warm and feeds them lots of protein), and thus I do know people who use them as feeders... There's actually an article about their feeder use in the ACS publication #2.

Hisserdude to the rescue!!!!

 

[goliathusdavid]

I think both of those development times are sped up a bit if kept around 88F° 24/7... But regardless, even Orin Mcmonigle suggested using them as feeders for Amblypygids I believe, in one of his books. Once the numbers build up enough, you end up with more than you know what to do with, not everyone has room for splitting, the demand isn't so high anymore that everyone is clamouring to buy them, (though I do think the market price should be dropped as a result to get more customers), so I still see absolutely no reason not to use them as occasional feeders, so long as you're not feeding so many that you're putting your colony at risk.

There is still a reason not to use them as feeders: they're an extinct in the wild species. And while they are relatively common in the hobby today, in my opinion they are not nearly common enough to justify using them as a feeder. And I don't think my opinion is going to change until I see them in the hands of both substantially more hobbyists (preferably those not feeding them off) and even more importantly, institutions.
In summary, I just don't think this species is on solid enough ground to justify feeding it off. Maybe in the future, but not now. And again, there are a lot of other options for feeders (including other soft bodied roaces that have less vulnerable conservation statuses) so I don't understand advocating so hard for Simandoas.

 

[goliathusdavid]

Actually Therea bernhardti and olegrandjeani are extremely prolific despite their long development times, (which can be shortened noticeably if you keep them very warm and feeds them lots of protein), and thus I do know people who use them as feeders... There's actually an article about their feeder use in the ACS publication #2.

I haven't read that article, but thank you for the information, I will definitely check it out! Clearly I should not have used them as an example, but my larger point was that I believe there are some roaches which simply shouldn't be used as feeders - Simandoas being one.

 

[Hisserdude]

There is still a reason not to use them as feeders: they're an extinct in the wild species. And while they are relatively common in the hobby today, in my opinion they are not nearly common enough to justify using them as a feeder. And I don't think my opinion is going to change until I see them in the hands of both substantially more hobbyists (preferably those not feeding them off) and even more importantly, institutions.
In summary, I just don't think this species is on solid enough ground to justify feeding it off. Maybe in the future, but not now. And again, there are a lot of other options for feeders (including other soft bodied roaces that have less vulnerable conservation statuses) so I don't understand advocating so hard for Simandoas.

Ah but you see, "relatively common in the hobby" is probably as common as they'll get in Blatticulture's current state... So if there was ever a time for it to be OK to use them as occasional feeders, I personally think now is that time.
I'm not saying they're one of the best feeders out there, only that they can make decent feeders, and I'm of the opinion that, if you have a roach colony, of a species that's not in danger of being lost from culture, and you have enough to use as feeders, there's no reason not to use them as feeders...
It's not like using individuals from a thriving, healthy colony as feeders is going to drive the species out of culture, and since they're likely completely extinct in the wild, it's not like anyone's harming wild populations.

 

[Hisserdude]

Keep in mind that Simandoa are in the tribe Nauphoetini, the same tribe that has Nauphoeta, Henschoutedenia, and Rhyparobia, all of which are often used as feeders or occasional feeders... Much like those species, if kept warm enough Simandoa seem to do well being used as occasional feeders.
I'd personally like to see starter colony prices drop low enough for Simandoa to where everyone who just wanted them as pets had them before people used them steadily as feeders, but because people like making big money off of pretty species, that's unlikely to happen, and thus I see little reason to shame anyone for using them as feeders when they have excess.

 

[goliathusdavid]

I think your points are valid, and the situation more morally gray than perhaps I would like it to be. But it nevertheless concerns me to see a species so rare in institutions being fed off by many of the hobbyists keeping it. At the end of the day, this hobby needs to decide where it fits in the world of conservation. Feeding off even a few individuals of a species it is trying to conserve is not I think earning our hobby any brownie points in that world. And as someone who has already dedicated much of my brief life to the cause of wildlife conservation, it's not something I could ever imagine doing personally.

 

[wizentrop]

Oh, I love this discussion. Should I really?... Oh well why not.

I keep coming across this thread as I research Simandoa care, and have tried very hard to ignore it, but just can't tonight. So I'm reviving it to say what someone else really should have said. You shouldn't be feeding Simandoas to anything. You just shouldn't.

Excuse me, but you are not in a position to tell anyone what to do with their animals. I don't tell you how to keep and what to do with your animals.
Are you concerned over the fact that some people use and encourage others to use Simandoa as a feeder? Did you know that Piotr Naskrecki, the person who discovered and described the species, and who is also the very reason this species is now present in the hobby to begin with, used to feed with Simandoa? What's that? You don't believe me? Oh, no problem. Allow me to provide evidence from one of his blog posts:
https://thesmallermajority.com/2012/09/27/our-top-predator/ (that's a Simandoa nymph under the centipede)
Mind you Piotr is very active in conservation. But using a captive colony as feeders has nothing to do with conservation of the species and has no negative effect on it.

I have dedicated time, money, and effort in the past few months towards starting my own breeding colonies of this species. And it breaks my heart to see people throwing them away as if they were Dubias.

Please don't confuse your own emotions with other people's decisions. I like to see frogs in the wild and it crushes me to see them in captivity, and yet I don't lecture other people about their pet frogs.

There is still a reason not to use them as feeders: they're an extinct in the wild species. And while they are relatively common in the hobby today, in my opinion they are not nearly common enough to justify using them as a feeder.

Um, no they are not. Read here why.

The point is conservation. Breeding, selling, and distribution in the hobby is ONE (occasionally problematic) way to do that. But advertising them as feeders is just going to attract people looking for feeders - not the people who actually care about and want to ensure the long term survival of this species. And frankly, I don't want to see an extinct in the wild species in the hands of people just looking to feed it to other things. Just as I don't want to see Amur tigers in the hands of people using them purely for entertainment.
That's not conservation. And conservation is what we should be doing. For pete's sake, it's in the name of the species.

Oh, is it? Then tell me, when are you traveling to Guinea to reintroduce your Simandoa roaches back into the wild? Surely you have this planned, after all it is conservation of the species we are talking about.
I highly recommend reading this thread. As long as you are not protecting the wild habitat of the species, you are not doing anything for the conservation of that species. Our hobby and the pet trade are NOT conservation. It's preservation of species. Please learn the difference.

 

[goliathusdavid]

Well, so much for trying to keep things reasonable and respectful. I think you're right about one thing. This hobby isn't conservation. But I would hardly call it preservation either. Not when so many hobbyists are buying trafficked wildlife, disrespecting federal laws designed to protect agriculture and native fauna, or feeding off rare insects. Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying. There are countless good hobbyists out there. And so many of them are on this forum, people I respect and admire, even when I disagree with them. There are people who have helped save species. But the invertebrate hobby as a whole? The more I study it the more I question whether the bad outweighs the good, as much as I don't want to believe it.
Oh, and don't lecture me about terminology. I've spent the past four years of my life working unpaid at zoological institutions. Breeding a species to create a stable captive population to ensure its long term survival is a form of conservation. And do you really want to make the case that because Simandoas aren't IUCN listed they aren't functionally extinct in the wild when the mountain range they used to inhabit continues to be mined towards oblivion? They may not be IUCN listed, but the only known population was destroyed, and other caverns they could have inhabited continue to be.
I will respond to the rest of your claims tomorrow, when I have the patience and time to deal with them.

 

[wizentrop]

@goliathusdavid I 100% agree with the first paragraph of your response.
But as for the second paragraph, you only got a part of the picture. You cannot conserve a species outside of its ecosystem. Wildlife conservation always tries to look at the bigger picture, not just the species on its own but also its interaction with other species and its contribution and effects on the habitat. If you worked in zoological institutions then you are surely aware that reintroductions back into the wild are an integral part of captive breeding programs? This includes invertebrates, and I welcome you to look at this example.

As for Simandoa being extinct, please go back and read the forum post link that I provided, or read the description paper here (download link). The language there is very cautious. Saying that "It is possible that it may already be extinct in the wild" is not the same as saying it is extinct.

 

[goliathusdavid]

@goliathusdavid I 100% agree with the first paragraph of your response.
But as for the second paragraph, you only got a part of the picture. You cannot conserve a species outside of its ecosystem. Wildlife conservation always tries to look at the bigger picture, not just the species on its own but also its interaction with other species and its contribution and effects on the habitat. If you worked in zoological institutions then you are surely aware that reintroductions back into the wild are an integral part of captive breeding programs? This includes invertebrates, and I welcome you to look at this example.

As for Simandoa being extinct, please go back and read the forum post link that I provided, or read the description paper here (download link). The language there is very cautious. Saying that "It is possible that it may already be extinct in the wild" is not the same as saying it is extinct.

I completely agree that introduction back into the wild is an integral part of MANY captive breeding programs (particularly for inverts such as the Lord Howe Stick Insect and, for a US example, the American Burying Beetle). However with less and less "wild" left, the goal of many other captive breeding programs has become less reintroduction to the wild and more just keeping the species extant. Wild populations need to be protected, and reintroduction is an essential part of that but zoos also exist to ensure that there is a captive population if the worst should happen. Reintroduction is not always feasible. While the standard definition of wildlife conservation (and the one on which I think you are operating) specifies protecting WILD species and their habitats, stable captive populations, even those that will not be reintroduced, are still an essential means of ensuring long term species survival.

Regarding Simandoas conservation status, I have read both the forum post and the paper (the latter multiple times), and yes, Dr. Naskrecki is careful in his wording. But so are most other scientists on the planet. Is it possible that there are still pockets of this species in Guinea? Theoretically. Just as there could theoretically still be pockets of species that the IUCN HAS evaluated as extinct in the wild. But it is highly unlikely given the widespread damage to the entire Simandou mountain range by mining (most of which completed AFTER the paper was published). And that doesn't make this roach any less valuable, it's predicament any less concerning, or change the fact that numerous reputable people (such as Joel Sartore) and news outlets believe it to be extinct in the wild. And it doesn't change my point that I don't think we should be feeding a species of such vulnerable conservation status.

As for Dr. Naskrecki's use of Simandoas to feed, I don't see it as a universal justification. And frankly, I don't think I have to agree with it. I have huge respect for the work Piotr Naskrecki has done, but also have some objections (perhaps most notable that he chose to distribute this species to hobbyists before institutions). His feeding Simandoas doesn't mean we should all be doing it.

You write that "using a captive colony as feeders has nothing to do with conservation of the species." But it DOES have something to do with captive populations, which, as previously written are important to species survival even when those populations are not being reintroduced. That is why I am advocating so strongly that in order to increase captive population of this species, it should not be used as a feeder.

Finally, you say I am in no position to tell other people what to do with their animals. In some sense you are right. But it is also my right as a fellow hobbyist, animal enthusiast, and person to speak up for what I believe is right, and speak against what I believe to be wrong. And it is perfectly within that right to object to the use of Simandoa conserfariam as a feeder.

 

[Albireo Wulfbooper]

The problem with this stance, as I see it, is that it creates an untenable situation for the hobbyist. If you are a successful keeper, and your roaches breed well, then you are suddenly obligated to become a seller or distributor of roaches, whether that is feasible for you or not. I can understand objecting to the selling of species like these for the purpose of using them as feeders, but suggesting that people should be obliged to maintain and distribute their hobby species regardless of the personal burden or the potential for local demand is just unreasonable.

 

[goliathusdavid]

The problem with this stance, as I see it, is that it creates an untenable situation for the hobbyist. If you are a successful keeper, and your roaches breed well, then you are suddenly obligated to become a seller or distributor of roaches, whether that is feasible for you or not. I can understand objecting to the selling of species like these for the purpose of using them as feeders, but suggesting that people should be obliged to maintain and distribute their hobby species regardless of the personal burden or the potential for local demand is just unreasonable.

And yet, should a hobbyist really be taking on the burden of a threatened species if they are not willing to participate in its preservation? This is why personally, I feel we need this species in more institutions. If we can create a widespread captive population outside the hobby, then I could definitely see feeding these roaches as acceptable. But we're not there. Not by a long shot.

 

[Albireo Wulfbooper]

I certainly agree they should be in more institutions, as should a significant chunk of neglected arthropod biodiversity.