Dubia food for thought Q's

[fish4all]

Just a catchy title but I have to ask since I think way too much and always look for answers if they exist.

My thought: Most things I have ever raised, grown, cultured, bred or otherwise had as a pet, slower is usually better. Fruit flies being the obvious exception. This got me to thinking. Is there a difference in the health, nutritional content and overall usefulness of a Dubia Roach that is grown at say 72-78F instead of 85-95F? Higher heat accelerates life cycles and in a lot of creatures can and does cause lower overall health.

I know this is not feasible for a lot of people who raise them as feeders for a lot of pets so don't bite my hand off. I am just curious if anyone agrees that there could be a direct correlation, even though they are roaches, to their speed of their life cycle and their overall nutrition as a feeder and breeding health.

And on a side note, how big is new born baby nymph? Every site I find has different ranges for sizes so i thought I would ask the experts and maybe give others considering breeding them more information to consider them a feeder for their pets.

[MatthewM1]

I don't currently have my dubias with much for heating and they do fine. They have a slow growth rate. I bought 100 smaller nymphs almost 3 months ago and just have them sitting on top of my pacmans tank next to his lamp so they get a little extra heat off that during the day and a little bit of heat coming up from the tank at night. I've yet to have any reach adult size so I can't say whether or not they will breed at lower temps. When I first purchased them I had no intent on wanting them to breed but my frog collection is growing at about a frog a Month and need a replenishing food source. I am going to be putting them in a warmer bin soon.

Sent from my LG-P930 using Tapatalk 2

[JeffreH]

Hey Christopher,

Before I begin - I do not believe there is any kind of major nutritional advantage to raising the roaches one way or another. These guys prove to be fruitful enough for most keepers and will thrive in a variety of conditions. What's best? That depends on who you talk to... the temperature increase from 88 to say 95 degrees may increase speed of growth, but lower fitness. Its a trade off, and unless you actually develop and experiment to test the variables there is absolutely no way to be certain how much a few degrees affects them. A difference in a nymph or two being produced each month is very insignificant for our purposes.

From a Roach Keeper standpoint - their ideal temperature range is probably between 82-86 degrees F. This is the average temperature in their niche, and they would have evolved to thrive optimally in this range (hypothetically). It would be interesting to keep a few colonies at different temperatures while keeping all other factors in control to see what results in optimal reproduction... but again, the difference in raising them a few degrees differently is likely insignificant.

Nymphs are pretty small, but not as small as say, pinhead crickets. I would say they average a little under 1/8" in length at birth.

[Heatheranne]

Hello. I think keeping the optimal temp range for roach colonies would be best for them (the roaches) if you were going to raise them as pets and wanted them to live as long as possible. The higher temps encourage their breeding, but in terms of shortening their life span vs. nutritional value, it's hard to say. I think the nutritional value would remain similar if both groups were fed nutritional food and good water supplementation. Roaches can compensate quite well to both temperature and lack of food and water. The nutritional value would be most optimal for the amphibians that eat them, if the roaches are fed what is optimal for the frogs, not so much what is optimal for the roaches. In terms of what would make the roaches healthiest for longest periods of time may vary. For example, tomatoes can be quite healthy for roaches to eat, but will kill our frogs. Would roaches need high calcium supplements if not being fed to frogs? It is unlikely. High temperatures do speed up their metabolism and breeding habits. So, you have a shorter life span for each roach, but more nymphs per length of time. Would they be less healthy? Tough question...would the roach be less healthy? Possibly. Would it still be of same nutritive value to the frog?

[fish4all]

If I ever have the time and space I will have to see what effects different conditions have on Dubia. I do think that there is a good chance that if the research was done there would be measurable differences in the nutritional value of the roaches if they were grown in optima conditions. Would it be significant enough to make a big difference in nutritional value for our animals, I can't even guess.

Could a person get a Dubia to live for 5 years? Maybe even 7?
Would their offspring be more nutritious right after birth for our animals?
Could the raising of the Dubia roach at lower temperatures for a long enough time result in an adaptation that allows them to thrive in less than tropical conditions? Maybe not a good experiment, but still much more food for thought.

If nothing else I am glad this has sparked some debate and thought!

[JeffreH]

A great scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he is the one who asks the right questions. Encouraging some debate and thought is always okay in my book! = )

Could a person get a Dubia to live for 5 years? Maybe even 7?

Heh, probably not, but certainly a good thought! We could maybe increase longevity by a few months or some percentile. There are predetermined limits to most animals. Think humans briefly. We have increased our population from a meager 1 Billion global count in 1800 to some 7 Billion at current. Despite current advances in technology, it is very unusual to have someone live to be 100 years old anywhere in the world naturally (and we've had BILLIONS come and go over the centuries). Looking at the deaths of all people, you can create a model to find the range of human longevity and can remain pretty confident that 99.99% of the population will not exceed X age ever by normal death under normal conditions. Obviously, we humans are a little bit of an exception... it wouldn't surprise me if in the near future it becomes a trend to rear your own organs in vitro.

[qoute]Could the raising of the Dubia roach at lower temperatures for a long enough time result in an adaptation that allows them to thrive in less than tropical conditions? Maybe not a good experiment, but still much more food for thought.[/quote]
This may be a very interesting experiment to find the temperature limits to these guys, but it will only lead to acclimation. Actual adaptation requires lots and lots of time. Organisms can acclimate quite quickly to new environments within some range. For example, I can walk outside with a T-shirt and feel comfortable at 50 degrees F, but someone who has acclimated to Florida's climate may find this very chilly.

Actual adaptation requires a change in the genetic expression through generations; essentially following the laws of natural selection. Everything in life is dictated by enzyme kinetics: if one roach happens to pop up whose enzymes peak productivity is lower than the others and the environment is cooler, they will have a greater chance of survival and therefore and opportunity to pass on these genes to their offspring.

In acclimation, there are limits as well. In humans, our peak enzyme efficiency occurs at 37 degrees C. It just so happens that this is our normal resting body temperature. If you deviate from this range, enzyme kinetics suffer. Increase temperature and you increase the rate at which substrate can be processed, but increase the temperature just a bit too much and you begin to denature the proteins. On the flip side, too cool of temperatures results in slower substrate processing by enzymes which makes metabolism and other bodily functions slower.

Imagine a graph... we'll call it the graph of Blaptica dubia's fundamental niche. Temperature may be a variable on the X axis, then you may have something like humidity on the Y axis. You can continue to add dimensions to this graph until you essentially get a football shape of plots. Each plot represents an insect that survived its entire lifespan and reproduced. Each dimension will have another key variable that contributes to the survivability of the species. I know this is hard to visualize, but bare with me.

In this graph, you may see a cluster of points in the dead center that match with say, 60% humidity, 85 degrees F. As you deviate from this range, you increase mortality ever so slightly until eventually you find the limits. The limits in temperature for B. dubia for example are probably around 75-100 degrees F (for both reproductive fitness and survivability). As you breach this range or approach the edges, you increase mortality. No matter what we do, we can NEVER get this cockroach to breed at 60 degrees F or be able to survive 120 degrees F in our lifetime. They can acclimate to minor fluctuations of a a few degrees, but nothing significant. They've evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to meet the needs of their normal niche.

Offspring being more nutritious at birth is an interesting thought. Some species actually provide a meal to their offspring with an afterbirth secretion (usually very unpleasant looking, lol). I'd wager so long as the female has been given quality gutload throughout her time, the offspring will reap the most benefits. Insects really don't store a lot of things though.. it isn't really their nature to do so. I'm still unsure as to whether rearing a nymph on one gutload vs another influences nutritional value after a long period of time or whether following the simply 24-48 hr gutload window is still the best all-around.

I've been DYING to do some nutritional analyses of varies feeders under varieties of conditions and being exposed to different gutloads. The information out there now is so vague... are these values based on just the insect, or insect + stomach contents? What are the actual calorie compositions from fat and protein, rather than just the % composition? What other goodies are in each feeder other than just the basic printout of Protein, Fat, Ash, Moisture, and Calcium? All good info, but there is so much more to be explored!

[Heatheranne]

It would be quite interesting to see the results of a study. Please do post if you ever decide to do one .

[unkempt1]

The best (and easiest) thing to do would be to find a scientist or researcher that is already researching and performing tests on the very thing you are talking about. Honestly, Jeff is the closest thing. He's brilliant when it comes to insects, I have seen.

Other than that, the best evidence you will get from us will be anecdotal at best. Just think of the whole "oranges are best for breeding," which I hope any experienced roach breeder would agree that you can't quantify that argument. And many people treat that as gospel! What I experience may be 100% different from what Jeff is doing, and the weirdest thing about it is, both of us may be right, from an anecdotal perspective! The best answer that I can give is to mimic their natural environment as best you can (minus the substrate if they are feeders), and you should see the best results. Most of us are already doing that.