• CluckN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        211
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s catch and release so they let them go afterwards where they found them. Horseshoe crab blood is an essential biomedical tool that’s saved countless lives.

          • CluckN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            135
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s an anticoagulant and can detect the smallest traces of endotoxins in medicine. I’m sure I’m missing some details but there are some great medical journals that detail the process and help explain why it’s $60,000 a gallon.

            • Mercival@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              47
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is not an anticoagulant, quite the opposite actually. The blood (limulus amoebocyte lysate) will coagulate at the slightest hint of gram-negative bacteria and their endotoxins.

              It’s most likely a defense mechanism against bacterial infections.

              It’s widely used in medicine to check for bacterial contamination of injectable pharmaceuticals.

              • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Woah. Are horseshoe crabs like other crustaceans in that they eat pretty much anything including/mostly detritus?

                If thats the case, than how would it be beneficial to have blood that coagulates so easily?

                Wouldn’t every meal lead to a crab version of a stroke?

                • Mercival@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Horseshoe crabs are not crusteceans, they are early chelicerates.

                  They have an open circulatory system, where the blood (heamolymph) freely spills out of the arteries into surrounding tissues, so a small clot probably wouldn’t cause issues. Think of it like a cyst, sometimes if an infection can’t be removed by the immune system, your body will just enclose it in a capsule, so it can’t spread.

              • Rubanski@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Discoveries like this always makes me wonder, who had the idea to try it and why

            • Zron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              37
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Where can someone find these horseshoe crabs?

              And are they able to be bred in captivity?

              Pls respond fast, I’m already driving to home depot to buy the largest above ground pool they have.

          • EvilCartyen@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            38
            ·
            1 year ago

            The blood contains a coagulent which clots in the presence of bacterial toxins. It is extracted and used to ensure that medical equipent and stuff such as vaccines are sterile and safe.

          • prayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The main use is to detect how much endotoxins (proteins that cause our immune system to react) are present in a sample. This is important because we often use bacteria/fungus/yeast to produce medicine and then remove the microorganism from that medicine. This checks for anything left behind in that process, far more sensitive than any other test or machine can do.

            If it wasn’t for horseshoe crab blood, creating medicine that is safe for injection would be a lot harder and potentially more dangerous.

            • Rolder@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wonder why we can’t just make the coagulant ourselves. Or maybe we can but milking crabs is still cheaper.

              • prayer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                My guess without checking would be regulatory. The FDA doesn’t want to approve an alternative to an already working method unless it can be shown to truly be an alternative. That testing is lengthy and expensive.

              • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not a chemical compound, the active component is an amebocyte. Same reason we can’t just make red blood cells and need other humans to donate them.

                There have been other attempts at making synthetic coagulants without broad success. The thing that seems to be the most effective at minimizing the horseshoe crab burden is using machines to do the detection and cut down on the amount of LAL needed vs running the test visually.

      • Alabaster_Mango@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        79
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Here’s a description of the bleeding process:

        https://www.horseshoecrab.org/med/bestpractices.html

        It’s specifically non-fatal:

        Bleeding horseshoe crabs to death is not an acceptable practice in the U.S.

        The volume of blood taken is actually quite small, as most of the material in the collection jars is anticoagulant.

        It may look uncomfortable to us humans, but keep in mind that horseshoe crabs are not human. What’s normal for the spider is chaos for the fly. Granted, it would be kinda weird to be hoisted from your home by a giant ape and forced into a blood drive. It’s done as gently as possible though.

            • bstix@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hmm. Assuming that the production was actually harmless, what’s the difference between wearing a wool sweater made from excess animal production of wool and using a vaccine made from excess animal blood?

              • Gabu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                No such thing as “excess blood”, brother. That’s why we generally want it to stay inside of our bodies.

                • bstix@feddit.dk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes donors voluntarily give up a pint of blood every month, because it replenishes.

                • CashewNut [UK]@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Vegans can receive transfusions because I believe it’s down to “consent”. Humans consent to the blood draw. Crabs do not.

                  So vegans shouldn’t be taking any medicine or vaccines that have had blood crab blood used in their manufacture.

                  I have discovered the solution to the vegan problem! Tell all vegans about medicine being made using animal blood and they will die out faster than their B12 & iron deficiency does at the moment!

                  Patent Pending

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          Still, I was disappointed to find that a large percentage of released crabs die anyway. Can’t find the number, but it’s significant. 1/3rd?

          • lemmylommy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Afair estimates put the portion of dead crabs between 10 and 30%. Some might also be unable to reproduce due to the bleeding.

            • Mercival@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sadly a lot of the companies harvesting them will just kill and sell them for bait anyways.

              Of those that are released, about a third die. Not to say about the decrease in overall fitness, which can lead to them falling prey more easily.

              It’s obviously a traumatic experience for the animal in the best case scenario and that is going to reflect on their ability to survive in the wild.

          • Alabaster_Mango@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh, I don’t mean the “blood donation” being normal. The person I was responding to asked why they were being drained “this way”. I assumed they were concerned about the folded-over positioning of the crab.

            Also, counter argument (in good fun): plenty of animals get their blood drained regularly in nature. Mosquitos, ticks, leaches, and vampire bats are a few examples of things that drain blood from others. Maybe the crabs see us as giant pests?

            Defo not the best arrangement for the crabs though. As others pointed out to me, apparently despite the optimistic wording in the link I shared the process is still fatal to some. I’m glad we’re working on alternatives.

        • voluble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for the link and info.

          Not a reply directly to you, but to contrast the dominant view in the thread - what would it matter if even 100% of the crabs died? Sustainability considerations aside - a crab died for my delicious salad, who cares if they die for a life saving vaccine? Who cares if it’s painful and disorienting for the crab, it’s a crab. As humans, why should we prioritize crab life and well-being over our own?

            • voluble@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ripple effects, sure, I’m with you there, sustainability considerations, which I haven’t seen anyone mentioning ITT.

              I completely disagree with you about the status of humanity. Is it really your view that the well-being of a crab has equivalent moral status to your own well-being?

              • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                I completely disagree with you about the status of humanity.

                Why because we happened to evolve to think? Given enough time something else would of if not us. Given we may end up causing our species to go extinct due to careless disregard for our environment and even human life in general. We really are not that special and it would serve us to treat the ecosystems, which enable life on this planet to thrive and evolve, with respect if we want to live long enough too see other stars or at least leave the planet in a decent state for the next species if we all die from pointless wars like humanity seems to love doing regardless of if we treat our environment better.

              • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I don’t like hurting animals. If one believes we really are a special species because of things like our innate curiosity, I think you’ll understand the interesting quest to try to eat without hurting anyone/thing.

                Why? Better, why not?

                • Consider how difficult “getting off this rock” is with live food onboard. Plants can directly feed humans with limited processing. With some processing, you can make tasty high protein burgers that taste a lot like beef. Admittedly, still not nutritionally the same as beef, but compensable in other ways.
                • We’re a concious species (mostly), why not try to avoid hurting our fellow companions in this barren wasteland called space? Who else do we have in the known universe?

                I still eat eggs & cheese. Perhaps a day will come where I don’t need those either. I hope you’ll be curious enough to try some alternatives too.

                • voluble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve read good moral arguments for a veganism. I think it’s the right thing to do when it comes to diet. For what it’s worth, this isn’t really a discussion about diet.

                  It isn’t a decision between a lentil burger and a beef burger, this is an animal resource that can assist in saving human lives. There are other clotting factors used in medicine, and that’s great, let’s use and develop those. But suppose something more lethal and dangerous than COVID comes along, and vaccines need to be produced quickly and globally. I think it would be foolish to wince if we needed to take crab blood to roll out a program that would save human lives.

              • angrystego@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t know about spacecowboy, but I do. I still eat crabs, but I don’t think I’m superior to them morally just because I’m more intelligent or something. We’re just animals eating each other.

                • voluble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What I mean when I say moral is, I don’t see why it’s wrong if a bunch of invertebrates are subjugated, in pain, or die in order to provide something that improves the lives of humans. It’s not sad, it’s a good thing. “Oh but the crabs get stressed out, and 30% might die”, yeah, who cares, they’re crabs.

                  Sure, I’m a human, and I have a particular perspective on these things. But, we are special. Anyone who considers a trolley problem with a crab on one track, and a human on the other and honestly says, “hey it doesn’t matter humans aren’t special”, that’s, unappealing. In a purely academic, cosmic, arrangement of particles sense, OK, nothing is special. But in that condition, the suffering of animals isn’t even a question worth considering.

                  The fact that so many accounts in this thread are going out of their way to give weight to the well-being of invertebrates, in a conversation about human well-being, is baffling.

                  Should we be using existing clotting factors in medical settings that don’t rely on the blood of an endangered species that lives in an incredibly volatile habitat? Probably, but crab discomfort is at the very bottom of the list of reasons why.

              • Gabu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’d rather see a dead human than a dead non-human, to be honest… (with the exception of insects, those buggers freak me out).

          • Kedly@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because we HAVE to kill a crab to eat it, we shouldnt be killing or harming other animals unless we “need” to. If theres a way to harvest blood without killing the animal, that is the ethically cleanest option. I do think we should prioritize helping our own species over others, but that doesnt mean ignoring the suffering or harm of other species

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Highest chance of survival/low stress

        Edit: many do die still. I don’t want to say it’s safe, just safer

      • Darken@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s how blueberry is made Freeze some of this add some structure, let it set, then put it on trees

      • Emerald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because we as a species have decided its okay to torture others for personal gain

        • erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a necessary evil to save many many human lives. Alternatives are being worked on, but this isn’t just for money or food, it’s for lifesaving medicine.

    • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So this is basically like a blood farm from vampires? Shit, still surprises me what an evil species we really are.

      • zazaserty@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I kinda agree with you but when you think about it it’s not that bad. They are released afterwards and we can use that blood to save countless people, like you and me.

  • Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    158
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    People who know know that the crabs survive and are released back into the wild after their “donation”

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Real talk I’m fine with hurting crabs for our own means. Straight up.

  • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If horseshoe crabs were to become less economically important, is that a good thing for horseshoe crabs? They ain’t exactly Pandas, so will little Sally and Bobby care if horseshoe crabs become endangered? They’re already in a precarious situation…

    • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Horseshoe crabs have been existing for almost half a billion years, I would genuinely be sad if we endanger them to critical levels

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Climate Change is warming the waters they spawn their eggs in. They’re becoming endangered from that. Not because of a few we harvest blood from.

        • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t say that harvesting blood is the one thing endangering them, did I. Just that it would be a shame to see them go

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the topic of this thread and even if you didn’t say blood harvesting was endangering them, most people are already going to be thinking that’s what you’re implying.

            • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s a fair assumption to make, true.
              Idk, I’m just someone who says things exactly the way I think 'em. I don’t intend for a deeper meaning to be interpreted, but people are going to do that, because that’s just how people are. So again, fair.

        • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          But the blood harvesting helps. Huh. Never thought I’d use the word “blood harvest” today, or ever really.

    • kandoh@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think living to have your fluids harvested in factory farms is a worse outcome than going extinct.

      • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Personally speaking, the fluid in question and method of harvest would determine how much I’d rather be dead.

        • Acters@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          if things got to brain in a jar levels and I am complacently accepting of the fake reality, then I might just live a long life

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you are any part of nature and also economically important, you get barbarically exploited until you go extinct. If you are not, you will be bulldozed to make room for the former. Capitalism is the best system of morality humans have ever, and will ever, come up with, and I truly cherish the utopia it has brought upon civilization.

      • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Capitalism isn’t a system of morality. Or at least it isn’t supposed to be.

        The fact that people think more money = moral is one of the largest problems in the world right now.

        • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I chose to express it like that by design. My contention is that capitalism is, in fact, or at the very least de facto, a system of morality. It promotes wealth as an indicator of higher moral stature. It has superseded rule of democracy, as wealth has been assigned itself as a metric by which the efficacy of individual civil participation is measured and the path of society determined.

          In other words, money equals power, and possessing money/power is indicative of a higher moral. Echoes of medieval times…

  • MooseBoys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s a simple, nearly instantaneous test that goes by the name of the LAL, or Limulus amebocyte lysate, test (after the species name of the crab, Limulus polyphemus). The LAL test replaced the rather horrifying prospect of possibly contaminated substances being tested on “large colonies of rabbits.” Pharma companies didn’t like the rabbit process, either, because it was slow and expensive.

    From https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/the-blood-harvest/284078/ (emphasis mine).

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Or in China on a Wednesday.

      (I am being a little sarcastic, but traditional Chinese medicine can have some really shitty practices.)

  • Starkstruck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The crabs are released afterwards, it doesn’t kill them. Not saying it’s a perfectly ethical situation, but at least it’s not kill em en masse.

    • bill_buttlicker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This isn’t specifically animal testing, rather it is a process to get life saving medicine. They are working hard to synthesize it luckily. This has been the subject of a few major podcasts but I can’t remember which ones.

    • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      First off, this isn’t testing. We know exactly what we need Horseshoe Crab blood for, and it’s incredibly important.

      Second, it’s probably not torture. The worst-case-scenario level of discomfort from bleeding them is fairly low, like a human giving blood. And that (incorrectly) presupposes them having as advanced pain-sensing as humans. The actual death rate is the bigger issue, but we are talking about saving lives and the medical community is trying really hard to change the status quo on this. Covered below.

      Third, what you’re seeing in that picture saves thousands of lives per year. How much human suffering, how many human deaths, are you willing to accept to achieve those goals? What if one of those humans that has to suffer or die was your kid? There’s no plant-based alternative to this process at this time.

      Let me clarify this. Using horseshoe crabs for this purpose is VERY EXPENSIVE. It’s only done because we don’t have an alternative yet, and the process is necessary for modern medicine. There is plenty of research going into either making this process less expensive (which probably involves a lower death rate for crabs) or finding an entirely different process to achieve the same goals. But none has been found (well, except that they used to use rabbits for this. I don’t know the details)

      I can understand the desire to spare… um…shellfish some…uh… pain I guess. But NOT at the expense of human life and suffering. That’s just silly.

      • Ignisnex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s catch and release, not life long milking. Granted, the survival rate isn’t as high as I’d like (70-90% apparently), but I do also appreciate having safe injectable medicines. All things considered, with a species bias, I’d prefer dozens of humans live at the expense of a… Not crab. Unfortunate though it may be. I can’t also help but notice you’ve anthropomorphised them a bit. I’m certain these creatures respond to negative stimulus, but attributing fear and life long trauma seems to be giving their intelligence a bit of an unfounded boost.

      • 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, of all the messed up shit we do with animals draining blood from a bunch of crabs for medical purposes seems like one of the less egregious ones.

      • voxel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        they catch, “milk” and release them, most of them recover from it. (weaker ones tend to die tho, with survival rate of around 80%)