103 replies to this topic

[john.harrold]

 

So since you arent exchanging money for product you can spout whatever nonsense you like and don't have to have any information to back it up other then what you claim? Yet you are demanding data from someone else who is selling the "exact same" thing?

If you ever see me profiteering off of people please do the public a favor and point it out. Do the math and if it is anything like the math in this thread please call me out.

 

 

 

I could probably make this stuff cheaply, but you know what? I really don't want to. I'm at that point in my life where I just want to enjoy hobbies, and my time is simply worth more than I'd save by making stuff. I'd use so little of it that I'd have more crap to store. Does it work? Pretty much everything I've purchased from byFormica works. I got some of the early feeders and I didn't like the plastic columns. When I saw he had switched to glass reservoirs, I emailed Terry and asked if I could buy some. He just sent them to me. He didn't stick me for $4 or whatever. So if Terry says it works, he's built up enough credibility and goodwill that I'm willing to risk $15 on it. I'm pretty sure if I complained he'd even give me a refund.  You can dismiss anecdotes, but I think you're going to have trouble finding good hard data in timely fashion given the size of the community. 

 

Now you clearly don't think Formisazine is a good deal. But profiteering, really? It's not like he cornered the market on some chemotherapy medicines and has jacked the price up. This is a small hobby community. When you make specialized products to a small customer base you have to charge a premium. That or you become a charity and go out of business. Personally, I'd like Terry to stay in business. If my $15 helps, then that's another good thing in my mind. I'll even support his kickstarter. 

 

Perhaps you would use this stuff in a volume that would make buying it from Terry unaffordable. Or perhaps you're just so principled that spending this much money on something you think you could make so much more cheaply is an affront to your very being. Perhaps there is some other reason. That's cool. You probably shouldn't buy it.  From my perspective your response is simply disproportional to any affront you're experiencing. 

[Reacker]

Content removed by author. 

[thosaka]

This topic is quite controversial. I think calling out on data is a good thing. There are many scammers out there. There are also many loopholes out there. But, it is also important for the seller to keep their recipe or ingredients as private as possible. I remember watching an ABC news scam report on regards to a guy selling miracle spring water. The seller of course would flee or evade all media.

 

http://www.csicop.or...hez_the_peter_ 

 

The funny thing is that there are too many naive people out there.

Edited by Tagassi, April 25 2017 - 5:40 PM.

[CallMeCraven]

 

Your sources, as they are provided in your post, are questionable at best. Your chart on pH effect on preservative efficacy sites references that you do not provide, so the exact context of the chart is impossible to be determined (efficacy in what, makeup, food, drugs, arthropod enthusiest product?). The second figure, from the Journal of Applied Oral Science (?),forces me to make several assumptions since, once again you provide no context for your source. What assumptions I can draw from the limited text is that the chart lists the concentration of methylparaben in (prescription?) drugs on the Brazilian market for use in humans to treat something to do with Oral Science. Again, context in the form of the full article will help with clarification, not to mention show us the methods and more results of the study. So far, with the sources provided, I can draw the conclusion that I, as a human can use methlyparaben in concentrations of around 0.1% to treat something to do with Oral Science (which I am still not clear what Oral Science is, having to do with a mouth or something like oral traditions, but instead of folk tales, villages pass science from one generation to the next) as long as pH of the solution containing the methylparaben is somewhere between 4-8 (but I can't determine if that is even correct because I can not see the references sited in the table). I guess that is some relief if I ever personally engage in oral science. Using these references seems an awful like comparing apples to oranges, and seeing as the subject of this forum are arthropods, not mammals, more relevant and properly cited sources are needed in my opinion.

Sorry I assumed if you wanted to read the references for the chart that you would 1) look at the url and 2) google the title of the chart. It is the second link: http://www.americanp...a-Preservative/

If you had bothered to actually read the second source the full text is very obviously linked on the left above the chart should you wish to read it. Had you clicked to read the full article you would have seen that they were comparing the concentrations of methylparaben used as a preservative in oral analgesic solutions just as the title of the chart suggests. It is a perfect citation for my assertion about the concentration of methylparaben needed to abate mold/fungus/bacterial growth in a test tube containing distilled water.

 

In your original DIY thread, Terry offered his professional opinion that your methods could prove dangerous/lethal for ant colonies. I am fairly certain he did not announce that it will flat out kill all ants.

Here is a quote where he claims my guide could kill peoples ants: "that will...at worst, kill the ants of users who attempt them." That is quite an accusation to make.

I am not supporting byFormica or Terry, I am simply pointing out that you are not providing any sources to counteract the claims put forward by byFormica. The links your have provided offer no context, and what assumptions I can make from them lead me to believe they are about use of methylparaben in mammals i.e. humans.

You are disparaging my sources without having bothered to investigate them at all...I'm not sure what you are adding to this discussion?

 

Thank you for linking your full sources. Now we are getting to the foundation of citing proper sources in a semi-formal manner. I really do understand your frustration that I wouldn't chase your sources, but then again, I am not the one trying to make the point. The burden of proof falls to the person with something to prove. I wish it wasn't true, but writing papers in college and in my job have sure taught me that.

 

After reading the sources again, I am still fairly certain that they do not pertain to the topic of using a solution of methylparaben as a safe anti-microbial (etc.) replacement for watering your ants. The article pertaining to the table you linked is dealing with "developing preservation systems for multi-use oral, topical and parenteral medicinal products" (Elder, Crowley 2012). It continues to talk about the efficacy of antimicrobials in certain pH ranges, 4-8 being preferable for methylparabens (Elder, Crowley 2012). Given that the pH of distilled water is, on average, 5.7 (Kulthanan, Nuchkull, Varothai 2013), this supports that methylparabens are suitable as an antimicrobial for use in topical/parenteral medical products (Elder, Crowley 2012). I failed to glean (may be my fault, maybe not) the desired concentration of methylparaben to keep in solution (for max effectiveness or safety), but did read that the concentration of it will decrease over time as it is unstable (Elder, Crowley 2012). It isn't much of a stretch to say it will work in a simple solution with distilled water as an antimicrobial, but the paper goes on to say that "interactions with other components within the product (drug, excipients, pack or delivery device)" could compromise preservative efficacy (Elder, Crowley 2012) without listing any specific compounds that could affect the methylparaben, for example. So hey, lets stick to supported facts. With all of that aside, the article dealing with medicines used in dentistry is just off topic, and it is generally bad form to make assumptions from unrelated topics without further support. 

 

Looking at your further support, you provide another article pertaining to medicines used in dentistry. This time the papers objective was to "To detect the presence and concentration of methylparaben in cartridges of commercial Brazilian local anesthetics" (Rodriguez da SILVA, et al. 2012). The results of the study where that "When detected in the solutions, the methylparaben concentration ranged from 0.01% (m/v) to 0.16% (m/v). One glass and all plastic cartridges presented methylparaben" (Rodriguez da SILVA, et al. 2012). Mission accomplished I would say on the part of the researchers. They found methylparaben in varying concentrations and go on to say that it is important to alert dentists to its presence because some people may be allergic (Rodriguez da SILVA, et al. 2012). The article does not specualte about what concentrations are safe or which may trigger the allergy, but simply states that it is an effect antimicrobial agent and is found in cosmetics, pharmaceutical products, and some foods (Rodriguez da SILVA, et al. 2012). The article goes on to talk about how rare hypersensitivity is, but does not other researchers have documented it. It goes on to cite Mason, et al. about methylparabens effect on rats, causing respiratory depression, fatigue, and ataxy at doses higher than 165 mg/kg (Rodriguez da SILVA, et al. 2012). It is noted the methylparaben is prohibited to be used with dental anesthetic cartridges in the U.S. in 1984 (Rodriguez da SILVA, et al. 2012). Again, interesting stuff on the occurrence of methylparaben in Brazilian dentistry and its possible side affects. I am now starting to waver on how safe this is for ants, reading about its affects on humans and rats. However, this does not pertain directly to ants and seems like attempts to draw conclusions from a study that simply measured how much methylparaben occurred in Brazilian dentistry products seems like bad form.

 

Onto Terry's quote, I think you say it best when you say "could kill". That really isn't a promise and sounds like Terry is speculating based on prior knowledge/experience. The comment has been removed so I can not see the part that was omitted but no matter. The part of quote you used still says the phrase "at worst". Again pretty broad. Off topic example, when I take out my garbage, at worst I could be attacked by rabid raccoons. Will it happen? Who knows. It is a possibility, just like it is a possibility that someone makes a mistake following your DIY guide and creates a solution which has to much methylparaben in it and kills their ants.

 

I am disparaging your sources because from the snapshot you offered into them where unrelated with anything to do with this forum. You offered us great insight on the use of methylparaben in dentistry and a preservative and antimicrobial. Does this mean that it can be safely used to keep test tubes clean of mold etc for your ants? Possibly, but these sources do not support that use, and it is sloppy science to borrow from  totally unrelated field and apply it to the biology of an ant. None of that articles you cited even stated it was totally safe for human consumption, if not introduce the question that it may pose some risk to your health. Now how can you apply that to ants? Physiologies are totally different. 

 

I am adding as much to this "discussion" as much as you are. I am showing that just because someone links (incomplete at the time) sources, and draws conclusions from those sources, doesn't mean their interpretation is right. Unless you are going to offer applicable research,  for at least arthropods, that points to the benefits, or lack there of, of methylparaben you have offered up as much proof as byFormica has. None. Guess what. byFormica does not have to provide you that proof because you asked, and until you prove them wrong, I hope they don't. They have just as much right as a business to market their product in a way they want as you do to get on your internet soap box and try to convince everyone with misleading studies that they are wrong. Prove them wrong with definitive research, or hey, don't buy the product, and lets keep it all to one thread. I go back to my original post:

 

 

 

This thread is a toxic drama cesspool that is driving at a personal vendetta that adds nothing additional from the other threads that have been cited multiple times, and belongs in the sandbox with other uninformative and immature topics.

And now I am a part of that but hey, you made my last hour of work go by super quick. Thanks.

 

Citations:

Elder, P. D., & Crowley, P. J. (2012, January 01). Antimicrobial Preservatives Part Two: Choosing a Preservative. Retrieved April 25, 2017, from http://www.americanp...a-Preservative/

 

Kulthanan, K., Nuchkull, P., & Varothai, S. (2013). The pH of water from various sources: an overview for recommendation for patients with atopic dermatitis. Asia Pacific Allergy,3(3), 155-160. doi:10.5415/apallergy.2013.3.3.155

 

Silva, G. H., Bottoli, C. B., Groppo, F. C., Volpato, M. C., Ranali, J., Ramacciato, J. C., & Motta, R. H. (2012). Methylparaben concentration in commercial Brazilian local anesthetics solutions. Journal of Applied Oral Science,20(4), 444-448. doi:10.1590/s1678-77572012000400009

[Subverted]

I think we will have to agree to disagree about how applicable papers about the use of methylparaben in solution as both an antimicrobial and antifungal element at certain pH levels or that it is used at certain concentrations to keep pharmaceuticals free of microbes and fungi does or does not relate to the problem of keeping ants water clean.

 

Thank you for your wonderfully expansive post and for including a citation that supports my suggestion to use distilled water (pH in the sweet spot for paraben efficacy) in the instructions I give for making methylparaben water. I wasnt sure if pH of distilled water would vary too much or not - for reference the stuff I got was at around a pH of 5 instead of 5.7 but maybe I need to calibrate my pH meter and try it on a new bottle.

 

That post truly added to the discussion even if we disagree on how applicable the references are to this problem so thank you

[Antony]

Update? Lol.

[CallMeCraven]

Update? Lol.

show is over, everyone went home.

[Serafine]

Content removed by author.

Your post isn't even edited.


Hopefully this awful abomination of a thread can now rest in piece.

Edited by Serafine, April 26 2017 - 2:37 AM.

[Tyrael]

Let me preface this by saying that you could add an FAQ section to Amazon for each of your products to answer these questions. I think the problem that Subverted has is that you use a lot of professional/scientific words and phrases to describe your products but without the data or meeting the standards to do so. If you were more transparent, people like Subverted may have less of an issue with you. Additionally, use factual-based words/phrases instead of subjective/meaningless words like "wholesome", "natural", "perfect", and so on. Lastly, don't delete your messages. Standing by what you say gives you more credibility. If you are wrong, then just make a correction. It looks bad that you nuked all your posts in this thread. 

 

 

The 100% insect-safe formula is an excellent source of vitamin C, making it a perfect replacement for water in liquid feeders.

 

 

Using the phrase "excellent source of" is a protected term enforced by the FDA. To use this phrase your product must contain 20% or more of the recommended daily value per serving. The FDA enforces this rule on animal/pet foods, so presumably it would also apply to ant food. To make this claim you would have to determine the daily requirements of Vitamin C for an ant and then provide 20% or more of it per serving in your product.

 

Water Amazon Description: 

Reduce stress to ants and eliminate maintenance by providing water that resists spoilage

Use full-strength as a replacement for plain water in test tube founding nests to retard bacterial and fungal growth

Promote cleanliness using Formisazine® to hydrate sponges or other refillable media in any standard formicarium

May be used as a drinking water alternative for ants or other insects wherever sanitation is a concern

250 ml of ready-to-use, life-extending water for test tubes, formicarium hydration, and even drinking

 

Subverted already went through this one, but I will too. 

1. How does it reduce stress? 

2. It does not eliminate maintenance, it reduces maintenance, because you still have to refill the water.

3. How and with what effectiveness does it reduce spoilage and bacterial/fungal growth?

4. How does it "promote cleanliness"?

 

Sunburst's Amazon overview

 

 

99.8% natural, wholesome ingredients - high receptivity formula compatible with all species of ants

Product will not spoil, and no refrigeration is required

In addition to sugar, Sunburst supplies the perfect balance of salts and essential micronutrients, commonly absent in captive ant diets, to stimulate appetite and promote natural feeding response

Feed alongside insects and other natural foods for a nutritionally complete diet

 

1. How are you measuring that it is highly receptive to all ant species?

2. How do you know it is compatible with all ant species?

3. In what conditions and over what time did you test spoilage?

4. How have you determined it is the "perfect balance?"

5. What micro-nutrients does it provide, and why are they essential?

6. What evidence is there that these are "commonly absent in captive ant diets"?

7. What does it mean to "stimulate appetite and promote natural feeding response" and how does your product achieve this?

 

Sunburst's Amazon product description

Overview: SUNBURST Ant Nectar is a premium liquid food formulated for all levels of antkeepers to maintain adequate nutrition for complete ant colonies with a queen and brood.  Our unique formula consists of a ready-to-use liquid, and works best with a liquid feeder designed for ants.

For best results feed as much as your ants can consume in a few hours, every 2-3 days.  Allowing ants constant 24/7 access to this or other foods will allow them to tire of the food, and the user will observe less activity over time.  When using SUNBURST, do not use other sweetened foods such as sugar water, honey, or hummingbird nectar.

Minimally processed, wholesome ingredients - Beware of artificial sweeteners or preservatives that are extremely poisonous to ants. Each ingredient in our formula is tested and guaranteed ant-safe, with absolutely no harmful preservatives added.

Healthy simple carbohydrates - Sucrose from non-GMO sources keeps adult ants strong and healthy.

A superior alternative to honey, hummingbird nectar, and sugar water - We have perfected the ratio of sugar, water, and other trace minerals to optimize our blend for maximum receptivity with most species of ants.

1. By what standard is the nutrition provided "adequate"? 

2. In what way are the ingredients "minimally processed" and "wholesome"?

3. Why are artificial sweeteners and preservatives dangerous and why are yours not? 

4. How is your formula tested?

5. Is the sucrose certified as non-GMO? How do we know that? Why are GMO-sourced products dangerous to ants?

6. What makes it superior to honey/nectar/sugar water? What makes it the perfect ratio? 

[PTAntFan]

It is simple capitalism. byFormica saw a market for a product, created said product, and priced it at a level where his costs are covered and he can recoup some of the R&D that went into making said product (even if R&D is simply determining desirable concentrations of compounds to mix into solution; not the point). It is up to competing companies to create competition for the product that will cause the price to drop or for byFormica to stop producing it because it is no longer financially viable. He is a business, whose sole purpose is to generate money, not provide charitable products for a hobby market. You did your "consumer watchdog" responsibility by posting a guide for creating a similar product, and for that I will give you a firm pat on the back. However, the same can be said for distilled water that you purchase at the store. Anyone can make it (http://www.wikihow.c...Distilled-Water), yet water companies still sell it for a profit. You advocate its use in your DIY, but don't offer a DIY solution for making your own distilled water, so you are feeding into the notion of a "rip off" product even in your own thread. Point being, everyone can DIY anything. The opportunity cost of doing so is the variable that makes products "worth it" or not. Companies exist to PROFIT from people who value their time and efforts more so than that of the cost of the product the company produces.

 

This thread is a toxic drama cesspool that is driving at a personal vendetta that adds nothing additional from the other threads that have been cited multiple times, and belongs in the sandbox with other uninformative and immature topics.

Oh but it's adding so much humor to my evening, CallmeCraven!

[Canadian anter]

Sub, you can buy 150ml for 15$ and 100 gallons for 17$.

Ok I accept that.

However, I don't need, want or have the space for a 100 gallons of the stuff. Considering what the product is used for, I might not even use 150 ml in my antkeeping career. I will present a metaphor to what I am saying which you will probably call irrelevant in an attempt to win your argument. Suppose you will only ever need say 20 apples which you can buy for 40$. Now let's say there's a deal for 100 apples for 60$. Although the second example would be cheaper, most of it would never be used. So what's the point on spending the extra money on something you most likely will not use because "it's cheaper".

[Martialis]

Didn't this end already?

[CallMeCraven]

Didn't this end already?

Yes and no. Some people can't/don't check the forum everyday, so its alright for late comers to chime in. It ended in the sense that Subverted and I have stopped being on subject... for now...  (note I am done with this thread other than these off topic posts).

[Tyrael]

Sub, you can buy 150ml for 15$ and 100 gallons for 17$.

Ok I accept that.

However, I don't need, want or have the space for a 100 gallons of the stuff. Considering what the product is used for, I might not even use 150 ml in my antkeeping career. I will present a metaphor to what I am saying which you will probably call irrelevant in an attempt to win your argument. Suppose you will only ever need say 20 apples which you can buy for 40$. Now let's say there's a deal for 100 apples for 60$. Although the second example would be cheaper, most of it would never be used. So what's the point on spending the extra money on something you most likely will not use because "it's cheaper".

Your analogy is flawed. In your example the apples cost $2 per apple normally or $0.60 with the "deal". In this example the relationship between the amount of apples and the two prices does not justify buying 100 apples, if you truly ever only need 20. However, apples are a bad analogy because it requires a lot of infrastructures, time and effort to grow them yourself compared to buying from a supplier. Here is a better analogy: Say Coke sells soda for $145 per litre. You need 240ml of soda. Assume that to produce the soda yourself, all you need to do is buy the ingredients and mix them together. The ingredients would cost approximately $2 per litre. Do you think the time and effort of Coke mixing the solution and putting it into a can for you is worth the extra $143? If you think it is, then go ahead; it's your money. Even if you don't need a litre, the cost to make a litre compared to buying a litre is $143 less, so why not just spend $2 and make a litre rather than spend $35 to have 240ml? If you only use 240ml of the solution you create yourself, you spent $2 instead of $35, saving $33. Your analogy is flawed because it does not yield this result.

 

The numbers in the above example approximate the cost of manufacturing Sunburst compared to the price of the product. I don't really feel like running the numbers for the water solution, but I'm confident you'll find a similar trend. 

Edited by Tyrael, April 28 2017 - 10:56 AM.

[zlez93]

What the hell.

 

MY TIME IS VALUABLE.

 

YOU EXPECT ME TO ORDER SOME METHYLPARABEN AND WAIT 1 DAY FOR IT TO COME AND SPEND 1 MINUTE MIXING A BOTTLE WHEN I CAN SPEND 15$ TO GET SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY MIXED FOR ME?

[Kevin]

What the hell.

 

MY TIME IS VALUABLE.

 

YOU EXPECT ME TO ORDER SOME METHYLPARABEN AND WAIT 1 DAY FOR IT TO COME AND SPEND 1 MINUTE MIXING A BOTTLE WHEN I CAN SPEND 15$ TO GET SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY MIXED FOR ME?

 

As a new member you should be posting some decent content - and well, this is pretty disappointing. There is no need for all capital letters, and it is against the rules to be obnoxious in this fashion.

 

4. No posting any spam messages, including excessive posting of messages that add little to no value to the topic of conversation.

7. Post in legible, coherent English, without excessive use of emoticons, slang, chat acronyms, or instant messenger shorthand.

Edited by Kevin, April 29 2017 - 1:59 PM.

[Serafine]

What the hell.

 

MY TIME IS VALUABLE.

 

YOU EXPECT ME TO ORDER SOME METHYLPARABEN AND WAIT 1 DAY FOR IT TO COME AND SPEND 1 MINUTE MIXING A BOTTLE WHEN I CAN SPEND 15$ TO GET SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY MIXED FOR ME?

You should buy a new keyboard. Your capslock just broke.

 

Or maybe you've watched too much AntsCanada on Youtube.

Edited by Serafine, April 29 2017 - 3:13 PM.

[zlez93]

 

As a new member you should be posting some decent content - and well, this is pretty disappointing.

 

Sorry to tell you, but I am just here to purchase and leech .

[Michaelofvancouver]

Didn't visit the forum for a bit, but this thread was an interesting read. I know this conversation is pretty much dead but I thought I'd share my two cents.

I honestly don't agree with the notion that the products are overpriced. The value of an item is not determined by the cost of its ingredients, but by the amount people are willing to pay for it. CSGO Skins can be worth hundreds of dollars, but once a few hours has been spent creating them they can be generated infinitely by the developers for literally no cost. People who want them will pay for them, and this supply and demand is what dictates item prices. Isn't that the whole idea behind having a capitalist society?

 

Many things are considered "overpriced" by some people. In my opinion, Apple products and Beats headphones are all overpriced. Better performing hardware can be purchased for a fraction of the price of these devices, and so I make the personal decision not to buy them. And yet Apple remains one of the most profitable companies in the world, because there are people who will still buy their products. It's the exact same case with drtmiller's products. I'm sure many people find them overpriced. These people will make the conscious decision not to buy them, but there will also be people who do chose to buy them. Now if nobody decided to buy byFormica products, I'm sure the company would lower its prices in order to increase profits. However, since the company has maintained the price of the product we must assume that plenty of people are indeed buying this item, and so it is worth whatever amount he is selling it for.

 

By the way Subverted, if you're reading this, by letting people know about ways to make their own cheap alternative to byFormica products, you are actually lowering the value of the product. If less people choose to buy the product and they choose to make their own instead, are you really helping anyone by lowering the value of premade test tube water solutions? While companies do lower prices to try to compete with each other, this form of toxic competition tends to impact the entire industry negatively and ant-keeping is already a very niche hobby. It is my opinion that "large" corporations like byFormica, tarheelants and antscanada are crucial in order to keep the hobby thriving as they are the ones who offer opportunities for beginners to enter the hobby.

 

I've received free samples from Dr Miller in the past, and while he is usually a very busy man and the samples took a while to ship, I have to say the experience of being able to use premade food solutions instead of making my own was indeed very helpful.

 

Anyways, all this discussion over pricing really made me think XD.

I'll probably making a video addressing this, since I have also received tons of comments on my videos saying that ant companies charge way too much for their products.

[Subverted]

By the way Subverted, if you're reading this, by letting people know about ways to make their own cheap alternative to byFormica products, you are actually lowering the value of the product. If less people choose to buy the product and they choose to make their own instead, are you really helping anyone by lowering the value of premade test tube water solutions?

If I lowered the value of the product by giving away bags of methylparaben containing 11 cents of the stuff then good. People were being ripped off even worse before I posted this thread. If you do not have any new data, evidence, or anything else to support your argument but feelings... please don't waste everyone's time - drtrmiller has had multiple opportunities to provide evidence to support his claims and has not. He then made a legal threat in a private message and we still have seen no evidence from him.
 

While companies do lower prices to try to compete with each other, this form of toxic competition tends to impact the entire industry negatively and ant-keeping is already a very niche hobby. It is my opinion that "large" corporations like byFormica, tarheelants and antscanada are crucial in order to keep the hobby thriving as they are the ones who offer opportunities for beginners to enter the hobby.

You know what offers beginners opportunities? Going outside with a container. You know all anyone who is new to this hobby really needs? Test tubes and cotton balls.

Being told to buy products from antscanada, byformica, or tarheelants doesnt help any newbies to this hobby and that mindset is frankly a great insight into why I made this thread. The last thing a new person who doesnt even have a colony needs is a community that tells them they should spend money on products that have no evidence to support their claims.

We should all be trying to teach newbies that they don't need to spend tons of money to keep ants. This is not a hobby that only survives because of the companies profiting off of it - people kept ants long before those companies existed and will continue to long after they close up shop.