Eco-Fresh Dubia - has anyone used these?

[Polenth]

But really you are missing the entire point- The reason the AVMA has the exact recommendation it does, that freezing is not a humane primary method of euthanasia, is because it has been proven to NOT be a humane primary method of euthanasia. Your assumption that it freezing is a quick, painless death has been proven false. And that is why the AVMA's guidelines are what they are!

This study on cane toads found that there didn't appear to be pain reception in cooling then freezing as a method (unlike the alternatives that got used when a freeze ban went in): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4571096/

And this one found cooling appeared to cause less distress than the chemical option in zebra danio fish (some fish woke up again from the chemical method, so in a real application, they'd have to go through it all again): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19930828

The freezing ban was based more on assumption than on evidence and I wouldn't be surprised to see it getting reversed in many cases as the evidence rolls in. Also, as has been said by others, we're talking feeders where chemicals aren't an option. It's a choice between being killed by a predator, frozen, crushed or cooked.

For non-feeders though, this study on snails is interesting, as this method could be done at home: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5029829/

 

[Feral]

You're the one "not getting it". By your logic you're saying that the only humane option is to never feed live prey, and always to euthanize humanely prior to feeding.

Option A: live feeder mangled and dissolved.
Result: some unknown level of suffering, one dead feeder, one fed T.
Option B: freeze feeder, feed dead and thawed
Result: some unknown level of suffering, one dead feeder, one fed T.

Now tell me why you insist that freezing is worse than live feeding within that framework, or provide option C which reaches the same end state with less suffering, and which is available to the hobbyist.

Your Machiavellian approach to this is disturbing. The ends do not justify the means, the experience of pain in an inhumane death doesn't cease to matter just because he'll end up dead either way.

It's about what you do when you are doing the killing, not what the tarantula does.

I don't expect a tarantula to be capable of the cognitive and emotional requirements of compassion. But I do expect compassion out of my fellow hobbyists.

No, I'm saying nothing of the sort like what you wrote I'm saying. Misinterpretation. I'm saying that feeding live is (so far as we've found) an often unavoidable (though sad) consequence of keeping tarantulas, and a reality we hobbyists accepted when we took on the responsibility of having tarantulas. Often they will only take live food. So feeding live insects becomes an unavoidable, necessary evil. We have no other options in that situation. It's necessary.

But if our T will accept pre-killed food and we choose to prekill feeders ourselves, we DO have choices in our own actions. What the tarantula would do at that point is entirely irrelevant. We choose how to kill them, and how humanely to kill them. We are responsible for our own actions. If you actually have to do it, humane euthanasia options exist. So why would anyone purposely chose to be more inhumane than is necessary?

If you're looking for a practical way to humanely euthanize feeders...
Well, gaseous anesthetics, even if you took a load of feeders to a vet to be anesthetized all at once, couldn't be fed because they're tainted. So that leaves two options. Sudden and complete obliteration of the brain/ganglia is achievable, but tricky to get right unless you want to completely smash the entire creature at once. But maybe you could still feed a squished flat roach, I don't know. The other option is an overdose of carbon dioxide. So you'd probably need to look up how to (safely!) produce CO2 into a container (safely!) at home using a chemical reaction, let the concentration build, then introduce it to the insects. There are videos and websites on the DIY of producing CO2 at home. A dose that is too low is bad can cause stress and hyperexcitation , but at an adequately high concentration, unconsciousness should happen within seconds and death should be less than a minute, maybe two. CO2 overdose, properly done, is considered humane by the AVMA and the scientific community. Those are your two options for humane invert euthanasia at home.

Nope, I never said that...ever. I never would say that, and it's disingenuous of you to imply that I said that...

The AVMA Guidelines are for veterinarians treating their "patients". They are vets, their patient is going to be an animal of some sort. The AVMA will have and promote a point of view concerning what is and what is not humane at it pertains to the care and comfort of the "patient". It has very little to do with this discussion, it really is outside the scope.

This is not a personal attack in any way shape or form...it is a difference of opinion.

I am not a veterinarian, I am not treating an animal. I am not held to the Hippocratic Oath of a medical practitioner. I am following accepted and researched humane methods of exterminating an invertebrate...very simple.

I'm sorry that this is so emotional for you. It is not meant to be an attack at all. It is only a difference of opinion. We can discuss this privately if you wish.

It's not opinion, though. Science as concluded that insects feel pain and that freezing is inhumane and unacceptable. I don't know why you would think otherwise.

But first, please quote me accurately. You cut off my preceding part "By that logic", which makes it clear I didn't say you literally said it, but that by an extension of your logic it could be inferred from what you said. By cutting of my quote, you took it out of context. Please quote me accurately.

I'm not sure how not being a veterinarian excuses you, or anyone, from trying to be a decent human being who treats their animals humanely when he/she is able.
I mean, if the AVMA said it's not humane to euthanize dogs by putting them in the freezer, would it be okay for me to euthanize my own dog in the freezer since I'm not a vet?
Of course not, because it's been proven that it's not humane.
It's the exact same thing.
Freezing isn't inhumane because the AVMA said so, the AVMA said so because it's inhumane.

Additionally, I have absolutely no idea why you think I'm being emotional. I am using logic, reasoning, and cold hard facts to show you that freezing has been proven inhumane and we should therefore not use that method of euthanasia for animals in our care. It has nothing to do with emotion. Sure, cruelty can be extremely upsetting. But this isn't about that, this about science and fact.

But okay... let's say you, for whatever reason, don't believe in the AVMA's guidelines. However, those are based on science and fact. You can't dispute science. If you don't believe the AVMA knows what's humane for animals (ANY animal, in a clinic or in your living room), then do your own research on scientific studies of insect pain perception and freezing as a method of euthanasia. Their guidelines cite some sources to get you started:
(@Polenth, also here is some of the sources about invertebrates (not vertebrates, entirely different) that the AVMA is basing their recommendation on, but there are many others given below, plus all the ones that can be googled.)

-Reilly JS, "Euthanasia of animals used for scientific purposes" Australia and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, Department of Biology, Adelaide University, 2001

-Murray MJ Lewbart GA "Euthanasia in Invertebarte Medicine", 2011

-Cooper JE "Anesthesia, Analgesia, and Euthanasia in Invertebrates", 2011

And there are more references listed within the actual document. There are many more published studies since the AVMA guidelines were issued in 2013, so even better material is out there now.

The BIAZA (The British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums)
Recommendations for Ethical Euthanasia of Invertebrates (Version1.1-Apr2013) talks about freezing. Based on their survey of scientific literature, the say "research has suggested that this is probably one of the least ethical options (Bower et al, 1999; Pizzi et al, 2002; Pizzi 2012)." And freezing does "not provide muscle relaxation or analgesia effects. Considered to be inhumane without prior anaesthesia."

So check out those three studies that they cited in that quote for more evidence, a lot of material is based on them. And note specifically how that quote says that freezing was found NOT to provide analgesia, which means freezing does NOT provide pain relief to inverts.

[Edit- And here is a link to the guidelines published through the National Institute of Health (a part of the federal governement's Department of Health and Human Services and the largest biomedical research agency in the world) by the National Research Council regarding the euthanasia of animals in laboratories, which explicitly state that laboratories should follow the recommendations of the AVMA:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/Guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf

And here is the statement from the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC International) concerning euthanasia in laboratory animals, which also explicitly states to follow the recommendations of the AVMA and says it expects all accredited institutions (laboratories) to comply by 2014:
https://aaalac.org/accreditation/RefResources/euthanasia_2013.pdf ]


Or here is an abstract about the evolved ability of some insects to tolerate freezing, which isn't pertinent here, but it does also talk about how freezing actually happens in insects that aren't tolerant of freezing, including cellular dehydration and mechanical damage caused by the action of internal ice crystal formation and the effect on metabolism. (Which speaking of metabolism, it takes insects at least about 10 hours but possibly up to a week to freeze and die at normal, household freezer temperatures. It takes a roach about ten hours to die in a household freezer; Ten hours is NOT a quick death!) But yeah, here is the one on the biological effects of freezing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29749114
For another one on how freezing in insect happens on a physiological level, here is an abstract on how crickets become cold tolerant:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1744117X18300753

I could go on listing resources, it's all out there on the web. But the point has been more than proven.
Or, you know, just basically google pain and freezing insects from any current and scientific source for yourself.
Because...

Freezing an invertebrate is considered humane by everyone else...google “humane killing of insects”; and the freezing method is literally the first method on a very short list.

...just because "everyone else" is doing it doesn't make it true or right. I mean, even the Wikipedia page on insect euthanasia manages to get it right and explain how freezing is considered inhumane. (Though later on down the page it does completely misinterpret the cited material regarding use of CO2. It was good material, just applied incorrectly. It was referencing a study about using CO2 for anesthesia, not euthanasia, and it's true that CO2 is not a good anesthetic for inverts. But an overdose of CO2 properly applied is a humane euthanasia.) But yes, common knowledge or common practice is not necessarily correct knowledge or correct practice. So you need to look at facts, science, and logic. (And maybe even listen to people who know a whole lot more about animals than you do, like veterinarians.)


I don't know what else to tell you, science has already spoken. Honestly, I think it's kinda ridiculous for a person to think he/she knows better than the veterinarians and scientists who have studied them.
So, now that you know better, there's no excuse for freezing an invert.

 

[Pyroxian]

@Feral "Machiavellian"? Really? You somehow equate "freezing a feeder MAY be as humane as dropping it into an enclosure with a predator" with cunning/deceit or duplicity? Or perhaps you meant the psychological sense, of being cold and manipulative? Either way it doesn't fit here and I'm almost offended.

The fact that you bring up the idea of gaseous anesthesia to dismiss it shows that you didn't read or didn't comprehend what I said. I mentioned toxins as not viable ("ruin the food"). At that point I'm going to dismiss everything else you said in response to me and figuratively walk away from this thread unless you'd like to take another attempt at actually addressing the things I mentioned without resorting to high-falootin' name-calling or trying to assert some moral failing.

 

[Feral]

@Feral "Machiavellian"? Really? You somehow equate "freezing a feeder MAY be as humane as dropping it into an enclosure with a predator" with cunning/deceit or duplicity? Or perhaps you meant the psychological sense, of being cold and manipulative? Either way it doesn't fit here and I'm almost offended.

The fact that you bring up the idea of gaseous anesthesia to dismiss it shows that you didn't read or didn't comprehend what I said. I mentioned toxins as not viable ("ruin the food"). At that point I'm going to dismiss everything else you said in response to me and figuratively walk away from this thread unless you'd like to take another attempt at actually addressing the things I mentioned without resorting to high-falootin' name-calling or trying to assert some moral failing.

Please don't see my use of the term "Machiavellian" as an adjective describing your approach to be meant as an insult, or personal attack! It was not meant that way, and I would not do that. I applied the them to describe your approach, not you personally, but either way I was definitely not calling either you or your approach deceitfull or duplicitous! I apologize if it came across that way!

What I meant to mean, in using the term Machiavellian to refer to your approach, was in reference to his philosophy, like he outlined in The Little Prince, called Consequentialism, which basically boils down to "the ends justify the means" (which I also referenced). It's a method of reasoning that allows any action to be considered ethical if the resultant outcome is ethical.

By using the word "Machiavellian" to describe your approach, I was referring to that way of thinking, Consequentialism, not calling you names.

But please, please, please know that I was not calling you deceitful or duplicitous or anything like that, and I'm sorry if it came across that I was!



(Also...Yes, we agree that the residual anesthetics would ruin them as food. I said that, then said by ruling that out, it only leaves two other euthanasia options for feeder insects. So then I reviewed the two options for home euthanasia that wouldn't contaminate the feeder. Maybe reading that section over again would help clarify.)