Feeder Roaches: Care and Breeding

Take your ingredients and offer them individually the insects will let you know what percentage to include in the final diet.

Brands all vary in their ingredients so what works for you may not work for others.

While it is true that the amino acid requirements of reptiles are not known much can be extrapolated from working diets. It is difficult to argue with the effectiveness of Repashy foods and that they cover the minimum needs of crested geckos well enough.

Maurice Pudlo
 

daggekko

New member
Thanks for not beating me up guys:biggrin:

I know this diet will work for the roaches themselves because I used it a couple years ago with a colony that never got used as feeders. I like your idea on doing the ingredients seperately, but I made A LOT and mixed it already.

I also like your idea on pulling out what I want to use as food and feeding them differently for a week.

Thanks again!
 

cricket4u

New member
I wish I had read this before making roach food. Anyhow, wanted some sort of opinions, although I realize that I probably will be throwing the chow I just made out.

I made a simple chow. I mixed it based on volume.
10% chicken laying mash
20% wheat bran
40% rabbit food
30% dog food.

I plan to use this type of food as a daily diet along with some variety of fresh fruits and/or veggies.

As far as the dog food goes, my dog let me use some of her food. I get a better quality dog food. Not the cheap junk.

As far as the chicken food goes, I'll have to look at the bag to see if it is medicated or not.(stupid me I should've looked before I got it)

Basic question is, would the experts here see this as somewhat of a decent diet for the Dubia roaches or should I start over?

If this is needed, I keep mainly Phelsuma and feed Repashy MRP's and home made fruit puree mixes. I also use Repashy's Cal+ on the insects(which currently I am using crickets{until my roach colony gets big enough})

I'm a bit tired and feel lost after all the %'s of fats and carbs and protein. Thanks in advance and I will not be upset if you really think this diet is terrible. I am asking to get more knowledge!:biggrin:

Hi,

I would not feed it any foods high in calories or protein if I were you. Well I am not sure which one you are feeding, but there has been a recent study by Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Animal Nutrition group on Blatta lateralis(crude fat 14 to 27% DM), Eublaberus distanti(31-54% DM) and Madagascar hissing ****roaches(20-25%). The younger the roach the less fat and higher protein.
 

JSmithGirl

New member
Excellent post and thanks for all the extra information. I am currently working with Dubias. However, I am starting to get frustrated with how long it takes for them to grow wings!
 

Ozymandias

New member
lol just give them food, heat and time


also figured this would be interesting for some pople, these are some oibservations done by a guy on a roach forum i'm part of. it not scientific just some observation from a fellow roach enthusiast

Incubation Data for Several Livebearers by Zyphyr on allpetroaches

I've been taking data on several of my colonies to see which species produces babies first.
What I've done is separated out a bunch of subadults of several species of Blaberid and allowed them to mature together. I recorded the date that the first female matures on (and if there aren't males present already, the date that the first male matures) and then I eagerly await the first batch of babies. There will be a margin of error for all of these (since it assumes that the first set(s) of babies came from the first female(s) to mature) but they should be relatively accurate. All of the species are put in set-ups that, from my experience, are usually the most encouraging to reproduction (for example, Blaptica dubia has a very shallow layer of coconut fiber substrate, whereas Eublaberus posticus will have an accumulation of frass instead) All the roaches are offered the same diet; a dry food mixture and fruit/veggies once a week which is left in the container until the next cleaning. Some containers are being kept slightly warmer than others, and the temperatures will be given relatively (for example, the Blaberus discoidalis are being kept higher on my rack and thus warmer than the dubia or posticus.) Each container has a varying number of adults (I did not standardize the starting numbers out of personal preference.) I check the containers once a week so each data set is biased by this means of checking (although if I'm expecting something I will check once or twice over the course of the week.) Yet again, the data will not be 100% revealing as to reproductive trends, but it should provide some interesting insight. The idea is to get a glimpse of the rate of the reproductive cycle for each species, and not necessarily the sheer number of babies born. (The latter idea would require standardization of numbers, because obviously a container of any species with 20 adult females will produce more babies than one with 10.)


Blaberus discoidalis
First adult female observed: ~August 18, 2011. (Adult males were present before the female(s) matured)
First babies observed: ~November 18, 2011.
Days between female maturation and parturition: 92 days.



Blaberus discoidalis
First adult female observed: ~August 18, 2011. (Adult males were present before the female(s) matured)
First babies observed: ~November 18, 2011.
Days between female maturation and parturition: 92 days.
Approximate temperature: 78-84 degrees Fahrenheit (depending on season and time of day.)


Pycnoscelus surinamensis
First adult female observed: ~September 26th, 2011.
First babies observed: ~December 2nd, 2011.
Days between female maturation and parturition: 67 days.
Approximate temperature: 78-88 degrees Fahrenheit (depending on season and time of day; for about the first month after females began maturing the temperatures were on the higher end of the scale and they were later reduced)


Eublaberus posticus
First adult female observed: ~September 23rd, 2011. (Adult males were present before the female(s) matured)
First babies observed: December 25, 2011.
Days between female maturation and parturition: 93 days.
Approximate temperature: 75-82 degrees Fahrenheit (depending on season and time of day.)


This next set of data is very intriguing; it is evidence that Blaptica dubia appear to breed the slowest out of all the species studied so far, yet they are the most popular feeder. Though it cannot be said with certainty that they breed more slowly than discoids since those were kept at a higher temperature, it can be said with certainty that they breed more slowly than Eublaberus posticus as both were kept under the exact same temperature conditions.

Blaptica dubia
First adult female observed: ~September 23rd, 2011. (Adult males were not present until ~September 29th)
First babies observed: January 5th, 2012.
Days between female maturation and parturition: 104 days.
Approximate temperature: 75-82 degrees Fahrenheit (depending on season and time of day.)


Blaberus parabolicus
First adult female observed: ~October 10, 2011. (Adult males were present before the female(s) matured)
First babies observed: ~February 4, 2012.
Days between female maturation and parturition: 117 days.
Approximate temperature: 75-88 degrees Fahrenheit (depending on season and time of day; during the daytime the temperatures are considerably high but they fall to the room's average temperature at night.)

This set of data is particularly interesting because even with higher temperatures, this supposedly fast-breeding species reproduced the slowest of all the species observed so far. It should be noted that I did cull several adult females from this batch, however, so if one of the culled females was the first or one of the first to mature, then this data may be a little off and the actual gestation period may be shorter.

again this is not scientific and only dealt with how long it took them to breed the first time but it is still interesting.
 

Ozymandias

New member
thanks for that info if you feel like it you might consider going through that artical and sorting out the data for each insect, if not i will probably get around to doing that ether thursday or saturday just so it's more understandable for people. also do you have the original link of where you found that?
 

cricket4u

New member
thanks for that info if you feel like it you might consider going through that artical and sorting out the data for each insect, if not i will probably get around to doing that ether thursday or saturday just so it's more understandable for people. also do you have the original link of where you found that?

It was emailed to me that is part of the reason it looks that way. I'm sorry I have to limit my typing due to health reasons. I know you were interested in info, so that is why I posted it. It's fine if you delete it.:) I'll see if can get someone to fix it. It does look rather confusing.
 
Last edited:

Ozymandias

New member
not going to delete it (i'm not a mod lol) but i will go through it later and make it look a little less confusing for some people.
 

Ozymandias

New member
this is thanks to crecket4u who was emailed this artical. the original artical that creck4u had was a copy so some thing just didn't look right and where hard to read so i went through it and tried to make it a little easier to read.




An Investigation Into the Chemical
Composition of Alternative
Invertebrate Prey​

D.G.A.B. Oonincx1 and E.S. Dierenfeld2
1Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
2Department of Animal Health and Nutrition, Saint Louis Zoo, St. Louis, Missouri


The aim of this study was to determine the chemical composition of eight
invertebrate species and evaluate their suitability as alternative prey. The species selected were rusty red ****roaches (Blatta lateralis), six-spotted ****roaches (Eublaberus distanti), Madagascar hissing ****roaches (Gromphadorhina portentosa), fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster), false katydids (Microcentrum rhombifolium), beetles of the mealworm (Tenebrio molitor), and superworm beetles (Zophobas morio), as well as woodlice (Porcellio scaber).


Dry matter (DM), crude protein, crude fat, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, ash, macro and trace minerals, vitamins A and E, and carotenoid concentrations were quantified. Significant differences were found between species. Crude protein content ranged from 38 to 76% DM, fat from14 to 54% DM, and ash from 2 to 8% DM. In most species, calciumhosphorus was low (0.08–0.30:1); however, P. scaber was an exception (12:1) and might prove useful as a dietary source of calcium for insectivores. Vitamin E content was low for most species (6–16 mg/kg
DM), except for D. melanogaster and M. rhombifolium (112 and 110 mg/kg DM). The retinol content, as a measure of vitamin A activity, was low in all specimens, but varied greatly among samples (0.670–886 mg/kg DM). The data presented can be used to alter diets to better suit the estimated requirements of insectivores in captivity. Future research on the topic of composition of invertebrate prey species should focus on determination of nutrient differences owing to species, developmental stage, and diet.


INTRODUCTION

In most zoos and private collections, only a limited selection of invertebrates is offered as feeder animals. This selection often depends on the availability and acceptance by the predator. However, other factors should also be taken into account when formulating an optimal diet, such as natural feeding ecology, dietary requirements of the predator, and the chemical composition and potential digestibility of the prey offered. For the commonly fed invertebrates, information on chemical composition is available [Barker et al., 1998; Bernard and Allen, 1997; Finke, 2002; Jansen and Nijboer, 2003; Oonincx et al., 2010]. Although readily available, these species may not be the most suitable prey for insectivorous species to meet optimal nutritional demands or fulfill behavioral needs. The aim of this study was to determine the chemical composition of a selection of alternative invertebrate species that may be used to complement or improve the diet for insectivorous animals in zoos and private collections.



MATERIALS AND METHODS


Animals

Seven species of potential feeder insects and one species of crustacean were
examined in this investigation. Because earlier studies on insects have shown diet to be a major determinant influencing their chemical composition [Oonincx and van der Poel, 2010; Ramos-Elorduy et al., 2002; Simpson and Raubenheimer, 2001], information on the provided diet is detailed where available.

Rusty red ****roaches (Blatta lateralis: Dictyoptera; Blattidae) of two sizes,
small (second instar nymphs; 0.9–1.3 cm) and medium (third instar nymphs;
1.3–1.9 cm), were provided by a commercial supplier (TheBugpros.com). They were offered a small amount of water upon arrival and sampled within 24 hr of receipt via overnight shipment.

Six-spotted ****roaches (Eublaberus distanti: Dictyoptera; Blaberidae) of three sizes, small (1.5–3.0 cm), large (4.5–5.0 cm), and adult nymphs (4.5–5.0 cm), were provided by Agama International (Montevallo, AL). Upon arrival, they were housed on a substrate of woodland soil and provided with apple and dog food (Purina HiPro, Nestle´ Purina PetCare Company, St. Louis, MO) and sampled within 24 hr of receipt via overnight shipment.

Madagascar hissing ****roaches (Gromphadorhina portentosa: Dictyoptera;
Blattidae) of two sizes, small (1.5–3.5 cm) and adult (4.0–6.0 cm), were reared at the St. Louis Zoo on a diet of laboratory rodent biscuit (Rodent Block, Purina Mills, St. Louis, MO) and dry dog food (Purina HiPro), supplemented with lettuce, apples, and sweet potatoes. Animals were sampled immediately after removal from their enclosure.

Fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster: Diptera; Drosophilidae) were purchased
from Carolina Biological Supplies (Burlington, NC) and reared for two generations on Formula 424 (Carolina Biological Supplies). Adult D. melanogaster were chilled in their rearing containers at 71C for approximately 15 min and sampled immediately after removal from their enclosure.

False katydids (Microcentrum rhombifolium: Orthoptera; Tettigoniidae) were
provided by the St. Louis Zoo Insectarium where they were reared on a diet of firethorn (Pyracantha spp.), supplemented with raspberries, blackberries (Rubus spp.), and lettuce (Lactuca spp.) leaves. Only adults were sampled, immediately after removal from their enclosure.

Common rough woodlice (Porcellio scaber: Isopoda; Porcellionidae) were
provided by the St. Louis Zoo’s Insectarium and reared at the Orthwein Animal Nutrition Center (OANC) at the zoo for 6 weeks. They were housed in plastic bins on a substrate of wood chip mulch, leaf litter, and well-rotted wood, and supplemented with sweet potato, carrot, and apple. Only adults were sampled, immediately after removal from their enclosure.

Mealworm beetles (Tenebrio molitor: Coleoptera; Tenebrionidae) were provided by Timberline Fisheries (Marion, IL). Upon arrival, they were housed on a substrate of wheat bran, as provided by the supplier, and a fresh slice of potato was provided for moisture; beetles were sampled within 24 hr of arrival.


Superworm beetles (Zophobas morio: Coleoptera; Tenebrionidae) were provided by the same supplier, and housed and sampled identically as described above for mealworm beetles.


Laboratory Analyses

For all species except woodlice (quantity insufficient), fresh tissues (n51–5
samples) were homogenized in a food processor and subsamples (0.5 g, in duplicate) were taken for vitamin A, E, and carotenoid extraction, according to Barker et al. [1998]. After evaporation under N2 gas, extracts were sealed in cryovials and stored at 201C until shipped overnight to Arizona State University for HPLC analysis [McGraw et al., 2006]. Dry matter (DM) content of remaining tissues was determined via freeze drying at the OANC Nutrition Laboratory until a stable weight was reached. Dried samples were ground in a laboratory mill and sent to Dairy One Forage Laboratory (Ithaca, NY) for proximate (crude protein, crude fat, detergent fiber fractions, ash) and macro (calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), and sodium (Na)) and trace mineral (iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), and molybdenum (Mo)) determinations. Invertebrates were pooled to provide a minimum of 10 g DM per sample for each set of analyses.

Proximate and mineral assay data, except for the M. rhombifolium and
woodlice (n51), were analyzed by MANOVA using SPSS version 15.0 to determine whether species effects on composition were present. Within the ****roaches, a MANOVA was used to determine the effect of developmental stage. For specific differences, the data were analyzed by analyses of variance (ANOVA) followed by a Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test. Differences between mean values were considered significant at ar0.05.



RESULTS


Average values of proximate, mineral, and vitamin analyses are presented in Tables 1–3, respectively. Where applicable, standard deviations and the stage of development are shown. The MANOVA indicated that species had a significant effect (Pillai’s trace F59.424, Po0.001) on all analyzed nutrients, except for Mo. ****roaches

The three ****roach species differed distinctively in chemical composition.
Six-spotted roaches contained the highest DM content ( 40–50%) of the three species. Stage of development significantly affected most nutrients (Pillai’s trace F55.129, P50.007), as well as DM content, with the exception of Fe, Mo, and S. All roaches contained high concentrations of crude protein (38–76% DM basis; Table 1), similar to values found in literature on American ****roaches (Periplaneta americana; 54% DM) [Bernard and Allen, 1997].

****roaches contained moderate-to-high concentrations of crude fat. In the
earlier stages of development (small vs. large or adult stages), they contained more protein and less fat than larger specimens of the same species, as is true for most animals (a notable exception being neonatal rodents). Crude fat percentage increased with age in B. lateralis (from 14 to 27% DM) and G. portentosa (from 20 to 25% DM), but that same pattern was not present in E. distanti. The reported fat content of American ****roaches (28.4%) was slightly higher than the first two species, but lower than E. distanti [31–54% DM; Bernard and Allen, 1997].

In terms of dietary ‘‘fiber’’ content, both neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) content were similar for B. lateralis, averaging about 12% of DM. Approximately 60–90% of ADF in insects is chitin provided by the exoskeleton [Barker et al., 1998; Finke, 2007; Oyarzun et al., 1996]. The ADF content of G. portentosa was 10–13% of DM. However, NDF in this species was considerably higher ( 36% of DM) and may represent true dietary fiber from vegetables in the digestive tract.

Both body and gut content, especially in species with a relatively large gut or consuming high fiber diets, contribute to the nutrient content of feeder prey species. Thus, diet may provide essential nutrients otherwise unavailable from the insect with an empty gut [Finke, 2003; Klasing et al., 2000].


Total ash content of E. distanti was significantly lower (2–4% DM) than in B. lateralis (7–8% DM; Po0.001)) and G. portentosa (4–8% DM; P50.007), similar to American ****roaches [3.3% DM; Bernard and Allen, 1997]. Mineral content among the three ****roach species differed greatly (Table 2). As expected [Barker et al., 1998; Finke, 2002; Studier and Sevick, 1992], an inverse Ca:p ratio was found in ****roaches. Therefore, if using ****roaches as a feeder species, Ca supplementation is necessary to achieve a Ca:p of 1:1 [Donoghue and Langenberg, 1994]. Larger invertebrates (adult or large nymphs) contained lower concentrations of most minerals (Ca, P, Mg, K, Na, Zn, Cu, Mn, and Mo) compared with smaller sized individuals of the same species. Nonetheless, roaches seem to be an excellent dietary source of Zn and Cu. Fe content in E. distanti and G. portentosa increased with age. Because excess dietary Fe can contribute to Fe storage diseases in several species of birds and mammals [Bonar et al., 2006; Farina et al., 2005; Sheppard and Dierenfeld, 2002; Williams et al., 2008], it is important to know all contributory factors for Fe intake.

Vitamin E content of ****roaches was relatively low (11–16mg/kg DM; Table 3), providing approximately 20IU vitamin E/kg DM (1mg51.49IU). Pennino et al. [1991] found almost 10-fold higher concentrations of vitamin E (179 IU/kg DM) in wild-caught ****roaches. Retinol content varied from 25 to 116mg/kg DM; therefore, calculated vitamin A activity (0.3 mg retinol51 IU) was low (o400 IU/kg DM) compared with estimated requirements, using domestic felids as a carnivore model for insectivores ( 5,000 IU/kg DM maintenance; 9,000 IU vitamin A/kg DM, growth, and reproduction; [NRC, 2006].

As with vitamin E, free-ranging ****roaches reported by Pennino et al. [1991] contained considerably more vitamin A (1,000 IU/kg DM) than the ****roaches in this study. Lutein, zeaxanthin, and b-carotene was found in all samples. Although dehydrolutein (DHL) and anhydrolutein (AHL) are metabolites of lutein, DHL was not quantifiable in B. lateralis or E. distanti, and AHL was only found in E. distanti samples. Both b-carotene (Bcar), found in all three ****roach species, and b-cryptoxanthin (Bcry) have provitamin A activity in many species [McGraw et al., 2006]. Owing to the widely varying molecular structures of carotenoids, there might be species-dependant differences in the ability of vitamin A synthesis from these compounds. Because vitamin A deficiency has been reported for insectivores fed unsupplemented invertebrates [Ferguson et al., 1996], vitamin A metabolism could be explored among different ****roach species fed identical diets to evaluate synthetic pathways, and determine optimal dietary regimens/ingredients for production of feeder insects with the most appropriate vitamin A levels.

Compared with mealworm and superworm larvae, rusty red roaches (B. lateralis) and hissing ****roaches (G. portentosa) provide high protein, lower fat alternative food items for insectivores—more similar to cricket proximate nutrient composition [Barker et al., 1998; Bernard and Allen, 1997; Finke, 2002; Jansen and Nijboer, 2003; Oonincx et al., 2010; Pennino et al., 1991].

Six-spotted ****roach nymphs (E. distanti), on the other hand, tended to be higher in fat and may be a poorer source of protein than either the other roach species, crickets, or beetle larvae. Owing to their high fat content, they may be considered a high-calorie treat item or could prove useful for improving body condition of insectivores. Mineral content of roaches was variable, depending on species, size, and diet, but all roaches examined still contained inverse Ca:p ratios, in the same ranges as the more commonly fed invertebrate prey [Barker et al., 1998; Bernard and Allen, 1997; Finke, 2002; Jansen and Nijboer, 2003; Oonincx et al., 2010]. Other macrominerals were found in concentrations that would be considered adequate to meet known nutritional requirements of domestic felids [NRC, 2006], considered to be the most suitable physiologic model for insectivores. Conversely, some microminerals, particularly Fe, could be excessive. Small hissing
****roaches are similar in body size to adult house crickets, and may provide a suitable nutritional substitute for crickets in insectivore diets (if consumed by the insectivore).



Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI 10.1002/zoo.20382
Received 31 July 2009; Revised 24 December 2010; Accepted 7 January 2011
The current address of D.G.A.B. Oonincx is Laboratory of Entomology, Department of Plant Sciences,
Wageningen University, PO Box 8031, 6700 EH Wageningen, The Netherlands.
The current address of E.S. Dierenfeld is Novus International, Inc., 20 Research Drive, St. Charles,
MO 63304.
Correspondence to: D.G.A.B. Oonincx, Laboratory of Entomology, Department of Plant Sciences,
Wageningen University, PO Box 8031, 6700 EH Wageningen, The Netherlands.
E-mail: dennisoonincx@hotmail.com
r 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Zoo Biol 29:1–15, 2011. c 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Keywords: chemical composition; insect; invertebrate; insectivory​


the original artical can be found here but you have to be a member to read it all
An investigation into the chemical composition of a... [Zoo Biol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
 
Last edited:

cricket4u

New member
Great Job but your really going to think I am nuts now. There was one more page. I just emailed it to you. I better go and get some sleep.:biggrin:
 

mrhoyo

New member
Maurice,

Do you have any pics of your roach setups? I'm interested to see how large scale breeding is done.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
 

nickexotics

New member
this is thanks to crecket4u who was emailed this artical. the original artical that creck4u had was a copy so some thing just didn't look right and where hard to read so i went through it and tried to make it a little easier to read.







the original artical can be found here but you have to be a member to read it all
An investigation into the chemical composition of a... [Zoo Biol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

This is cool! Does anyone have more on any other roaches?
 

Lilen

New member
I fed Dubias to my White's Tree Frog and loved them. Found if I wanted to stop them from breeding lower the temp in the room/ I also found a good gutload for them was rabbit food and powdered milk. Found the gutload formulas here I could buy was not in the quantity I needed to feed what I needed to feed (The colony was also for a friends Cham.)
Was my roach of choice. So these are good to feed my geckos? If so I need to order another starter bunch.
 

Elizabeth Freer

Active member
I fed Dubias to my White's Tree Frog and loved them. Found if I wanted to stop them from breeding lower the temp in the room/ I also found a good gutload for them was rabbit food and powdered milk. Found the gutload formulas here I could buy was not in the quantity I needed to feed what I needed to feed (The colony was also for a friends Cham.)
Was my roach of choice. So these are good to feed my geckos? If so I need to order another starter bunch.


Blaptica dubia make a good feeder for geckos, but they are too high in protein to use as a staple for geckos. Crickets have a more ideal protein/fat ratio. (Insect nutrient level charts can also be found in the leo caresheet or in the posts which follow my caresheet, but are part of that same caresheet, Lilen.)

Many geckos are very picky eaters and won't even try new prey. My mature female leo will not eat dubia, Phoenix worms, or butterworms. Mainly she eats crickets and once in a while superworms.
 
Last edited:

Riverside Reptiles

Administrator (HMFIC)
Blaptica dubia make a good feeder for geckos, but they are too high in protein to use as a staple for geckos. Crickets have a more ideal protein/fat ratio. (Insect nutrient level charts can also be found in the leo caresheet or in the posts which follow my caresheet, but are part of that same caresheet, Lilen.)

Many geckos are very picky eaters and won't even try new prey. My mature female leo will not eat dubia, Phoenix worms, or butterworms. Mainly she eats crickets and once in a while superworms.


I disagree greatly with the above statement. Dubia (and other tropical roaches) are far superior to crickets for many reasons as a staple for geckos. It's all about what you feed the roaches, what you gut load the roaches with, and what you dust the roaches with.
 

T-ReXx

New member
I agree 100% with Ethan. Gutloading and feeder diet has a TREMENDOUS influence on protein levels in prey items. Crickets raised on cat food are going to have a much higher protein content than any roach species raised on a diet that has vegetable based protein sources. Roaches make an excellent staple.
 

Elizabeth Freer

Active member
I disagree greatly with the above statement. Dubia (and other tropical roaches) are far superior to crickets for many reasons as a staple for geckos. It's all about what you feed the roaches, what you gut load the roaches with, and what you dust the roaches with.

I agree 100% with Ethan. Gutloading and feeder diet has a TREMENDOUS influence on protein levels in prey items. Crickets raised on cat food are going to have a much higher protein content than any roach species raised on a diet that has vegetable based protein sources. Roaches make an excellent staple.


T-ReXx & Ethan ~

Nutritional value of Elliot's Butterworms selling butterworms for petfood and fishing bait

What do you think of the nutrient comparison linked above? How would it be more valid?

To compare feeders we need to compare their diets?
 
Last edited:

Riverside Reptiles

Administrator (HMFIC)
T-ReXx & Ethan ~

Nutritional value of Elliot's Butterworms selling butterworms for petfood and fishing bait

What do you think of the nutrient comparison linked above? How would it be more valid?

To compare feeders we need to compare their diets?

It would be FAR more valid if...

A) it were presented by someone that didn't have an obvious vested interest in presenting butterworms in best possible light. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true.

B) if it were to include where this information was gathered from and by whom the research was done along with the date this information was obtained, by what means, and any other valuable data.

and

C) yes...if it were to include the dietary information of each respective feeder.

It's simply not possible to say that one feeder insect has "x" nutritional value without talking about the diet that it was fed. Data like that can be skewed a million different ways to suit the means of the end user. Also when you make a claim that butterworms are somehow better, you're forgetting the fact that these animals (worms) have comparatively small intestinal tract and evacuate gutload almost as quickly as they eat it. Compared to a roach that has a VERY long intestinal tract and can hold a ton more gut load for a far longer period of time. There's a lot more to nutrition than just a single variable such as protein. Even if the chart is correct, the protein level can be corrected via proper gut loading. That's the whole point of gut loading...to correct the nutritional value of the feeder to reflect what is best for the animal that it is being fed to.
 
Top