Skip to main content
WCS
Menu
Library
Library Catalog
eJournals & eBooks
WCS Research
Archives
Research Use
Finding Aids
Digital Collections
WCS History
WCS Research
Research Publications
Science Data
Services for WCS Researchers
Archives Shop
Bronx Zoo
Department of Tropical Research
Browse By Product
About Us
FAQs
Intern or Volunteer
Staff
Donate
Search WCS.org
Search
search
Popular Search Terms
WCS History
Library and Archives
Library and Archives Menu
Library
Archives
WCS Research
Archives Shop
About Us
Donate
en
fr
Title
Nutritional and physical characteristics of commercial hand-feeding formulas for parrots
Author(s)
Cornejo, J.;Dierenfeld, E. S.;Bailey, C. A.;Brightsmith, D. J.
Published
2013
Publisher
Zoo Biology
Published Version DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21079
Abstract
Hand-rearing is a common practice for the propagation of captive psittacines, however, research on their nutrition is limited and the requirements of growing chicks are not well understood. The nutrition of 15 commercially available parrot hand-feeding formulas was compared with the average content of the crops of free living Scarlet Macaw (Ara macao) chicks, as well as with the requirements of 6- to 12-week-old leghorn chickens. When the formulas were prepared for a 1-week-old chick, all except three maintained >90% of solids in suspension after 15min and >60 after 30min. On average the formulas had a similar metabolizable energy density as wild macaw crop samples. The concentration of crude protein in the formulas was higher than that of the crop sample average, while the crude fat was lower than the average crop samples. More than 50% of the formulas had concentrations of K, Mg, and Mn less than the crop sample average, and Ca and Na concentrations below the requirements established for 6- to 12-week-old leghorn chickens. For >45% of the formulas the concentrations of arginine, leucine, and methionine+cystine were below the requirements of 6- to 12-week leghorns. When commercial formulas were prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions, the different dilutions greatly magnified the nutritional differences among them. Overall, the inconsistency in the nutrient concentrations among the formulas suggests that there is no consensus among manufacturers of the correct nutrition for growing psittacines and the industry could benefit from continued research in this area. Zoo Biol. 32:469-475, 2013. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Access Full Text
A full-text copy of this article may be available. Please email the
WCS Library
to request.
Back
PUB13615