Scarlet Macaw diets in Tambopata, Peru:

studying wild parrots to improve captive bird nutrition

January 2007

Donald J. Brightsmith 1
Schubot Exotic Avian Health Center
College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University
College Station, TX. Dbrightsmith@cvm.tamu.edu
(979) 845-0563

Debra McDonald
Demac Wildlife Nutrition
Dr. Macs Organic Origins
PO Box 1004
Healesville, Victoria, Australia 3777
demacwildlifenutrition@yahoo.com.au

1
Please address all correspondence about this proposal to Don Brightsmith
Introduction

The diets of most wild animals are poorly known, especially in comparison with domestic
animals. Despite the facts that parrots have been kept in captivity for centuries (Colton
1941, Greiser 1995) formulated diets are usually based on modifications of commercial
poultry diets along with a mix of trial and error (Hess et al. 2002, Stanford 2005,
McDonald 2006). However, diet requirements for poultry can differ significantly from
those of parrots (Roudybush 1997) Additional research and education about diets for
captive psittacines are sorely needed as most pet birds are being fed diets too high in fat
and lacking in key nutrients (Hess et al. 2002). In this study, we will conduct detailed
analyses of wild Scarlet Macaw chick diets to provide new insight in to the nutritional
requirements of these birds. This information will be published in the scientific literature
so that everyonescientists, zoos, and commercial food producerscan work to
improve the diets of psittacines in captivity.

Over the past three years, the members of the Tambopata Macaw Project have studied
diets of wild scarlet macaws and other psittacines (parrots, macaws, parakeets, etc.) at the
Tambopata Research Center in southeastern Peru (Brightsmith et al. 2006). We have
documented the wild foods eaten and conducted basic nutritional analyses. We have also
been studying the large clay lick immediately adjacent to the research center (Brightsmith
2004, Brightsmith 2006). One of the goals of the clay lick work has been to determine
why the birds eat soil (Brightsmith and Arambur 2004). Soil analyses and diet analyses
have provided important information on the levels of nutrients available to the birds. For
Calcium, Potassium, Magnesium, Copper, or Manganese the levels in the soil are lower
than or the same as those in the diet, suggesting that birds do not eat soil to supplement
their intake of these minerals (Table 1). Consumed soils have nearly twice as much iron
as the average plant food. However, over 10% of the plants they eat have more available
iron than the soil they eat. The soil could be providing an iron supplement, but there are
other ways for the birds to get iron without eating dirt. As a result, we feel it is unlikely
that the parrots desire to eat soil at the clay licks is being driven by the need for more
iron.

The clay lick soil has nearly 40 times more sodium (the attractive ingredient of salt) than
the average plant food and much more sodium than any of the 89 plant resource tested,
suggesting that clay lick soil is an extremely important source sodium for the birds (N=
89 diet items tested, data from Brightsmith unpublished and Gilardi 1996). Sodium is
scarce in many ecosystems and leaches easily from most soils in humid environments
(Klaus and Schmid 1998). In addition, sodium is not needed by the vast majority of
plants, so is not actively taken up by most vegetation (Klaus and Schmid 1998). Where
plants do accumulate sodium, this often leads to animals eating the entire plant (Oates
1978, Ohlson and Staaland 2001, Rothman et al. 2006). Parallel studies in Costa Rica
show that the plants macaws eat can have as much as 120 times more sodium than the
foods the birds eat in Peru (Costa Rica data from G. Matuzak and D. Brightsmith
unpublished). In Costa Rica the birds do not eat soil, lending further support to the
contention that the clay lick provides a significant source of dietary sodium for parrots in
southeastern Peru (Brightsmith and Arambur 2004).

We have also analyzed the basic nutrient content of food samples collected from the
crops of young Scarlet Macaws (age 13 77 days, N = 30 samples, Table 2). These data
show that parents feed the young a great deal of clay, along with a variety of seeds, water,
and the occasional insect larva (Brightsmith unpublished data). The nutrient analyses
suggest that the chicks diet has very low sodium content, well below that recommended
for poultry and pet parrots (Table 3). Information on nutrient contents of hand feeding
diets for parrots is scarce. One diet used by a private breeder had levels of total fat and
total protein similar to the wild birds we studied, but the captive birds received 29% more
Phosphorous, 63% less ash, 67% less Calcium, and 88% less fiber (Table 3, Abramson
1995). The British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) has published
maintenance diet recommendations for pet birds and discuss the additional requirements
for growing birds (Stanford 2005). These recommended values are very similar to the
macaw chick diets in Peru for total protein, Phosphorous, Zinc and Copper but had much
less fat, Potassium, and Magnesium. The BSAVA diet also has much higher sodium than
the wild diet in Peru. The consequences of these differences between wild and captive
diets are unknown. One interesting finding that highlights our general ignorance of parrot
diets is that (Roudybush 1997) states that in diets for growing cage birds, Calcium should
be limited to no more than 1.2%. However, our wild macaw chicks receive on average
1.5% Calcium. A major source of fiber in the wild diet is the pieces of bark/wood chips
that appear in nearly every crop sample that we have collected. These pieces do not come
from inside the nest, suggesting that the parents make a conscious choice to feed these
high fiber items to their young. These differences in captive and wild diets warrant
further investigation and detailed data on diets of wild psittacines can help direct future
lines of research in to the dietary needs of captive birds.

Our previous research has provided great insight in to the general characteristics of
macaw and parrot diets. It has aided us in understanding why birds eat soil and pointed
out some gross differences between diets for captive and wild chicks. However, these
analyses are too rough to use to formulate new diets for captive birds. To provide the
information we need to truly understand the nutrient balance of wild diets, we need to
know more than just the gross levels of fat, protein, etc. We need to know details about
essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, vitamins, and even carotenoids (precursors of
vitamin A). Lack of such detailed knowledge has led to the formulation of diets that can
actually harm birds. For example Lories fed some commercial diets may suffer from
Vitamin A toxicity, reproductive failure, poor health and even iron storage disease. This
is due, in part, to the fact that in the wild, the birds consume mostly provitamin A
carotenoids which they use to make only the amount of Vitamin A they need (McDonald
2003).

With the collaboration of Dr. Debra McDonald, we have the fortune of working with one
of the emerging stars in the world of avian nutrition (McDonald 2003, McDonald 2004,
McDonald 2006). Her original scientific research on wild birds has already provided
great insight in to the dietary problems of Australian psittacines and other birds. With her
help, our work in South America promises to provide many new insights in to the
nutrition of wild macaws and many novel ways to use this information to help captive
psittacines.

Table 1: Comparison of available mineral contents of soils and plants consumed by

psittacines in southeastern Peru. Plant nutrient data from Gilardi (1996) and DJB
unpublished. Soil data from Brightsmith (in preparation).

Consumed soils Plant resources

Mineral Mean Stdev N Mean Stdev N p-value
Ca 427 209 12 5,233 7512 90 < 0.0001
Fe 119 46 12 66 48 90 0.002
K 140 24 12 16,977 15543 90 < 0.0001
Mg 259 55 12 2,786 2050 90 < 0.0001
Na 1,360 462 12 35 32 89 < 0.0001
Mn 17 7.5 12 67 125 33 > 0.1
Cu 0.73 0.57 12 10.7 7 50 < 0.0001

Table 2: Nutrient levels of crop samples collected from Scarlet Macaw crops at
Tambopata Research Center, January March 2005. The sampled chicks had a range of
13 to 77 days. Mineral values are given in parts per million (ppm or mg / kg). N
indicates the number of samples analyzed. This number varies because many of the
samples were not sufficiently large to analyze for all nutrients. Nutrients for which the P
is less than 0.05 indicates that the concentration of this nutrient in the chicks diets
declined significantly as the bird aged. The R2 and P-values were generated using
univariate linear regression (Sokal and Rohlf 1995).

Mean Stdev N R2 P
Fiber % 34.21 7.58 19 0.06 0.31
Ash % 11.76 8.76 15 0.00 0.96
Fat % 28.60 8.58 24 0.11 0.11
Protein % 23.46 5.56 30 0.10 0.09
Soil % 5.20 11.44 30 0.004 0.73
Ca ppm 14362 6112 29 0.08 0.14
K ppm 7310 2229 29 0.34 0.00
P ppm 4766 1327 29 0.05 0.27
Mg ppm 3572 832 29 0.22 0.01
Fe ppm 2457 5281 29 0.13 0.06
Na ppm 242 311 30 0.32 0.00
Zn ppm 44 13 29 0.06 0.19
Cu ppm 15 5 29 0.01 0.64
S ppm 0.18 0.05 29 0.00 0.80
Table 3: Diet comparison of diets for wild and captive macaw chicks. The Raintree
Macaw diet is a hand feeding formula used at a private breeding facility (Abramson
1995). The BSAVA column represents the recommendations of the British Small Animal
Veterinary Association. It is based on the adult diet recommendations (p. 137) and
modified by the discussion presented under nutrition requirements for growing birds (p.
138).

Wild Raintree
Mean Macaw1 BSAVA2
Fiber % 34.21 3.8
Ash % 11.76 4.3
Fat % 28.60 21.5 4
Protein % 23.46 24 20
Ca ppm 14362 4670 10,000
K ppm 7310 4770 4,000
P ppm 4766 4,000
Mg ppm 3572 600
Fe ppm 2457 80
Na ppm 242 1,500
Zn ppm 44 50
Cu ppm 15 8
1
Raintree Macaw Handfeeding Formula (Abramson 1995)
2
(Stanford 2005)
Budget
The cost of the field work for this project and the salary for Dr. Brightsmith are being
supported by previous grants from the Schubot Exotic Bird Health Center, Texas A&M
University, the EarthWatch Institute, and Rainforest Expeditions. This represents
matching funds in excess of $20,000. As a result, your contribution, no matter what the
size, goes directly to support the analyses we need to allow us to improve captive parrot
diets. If any individuals want to make additional contributions, all donations go through
Texas A&M University and are completely tax deductible.

Analysis Cost Units Total

Mineral scan $53.57 5 $267.84
Fiber $22.96 5 $114.79
Fatty acid profile $68.87 5 $344.37
Moisture $11.48 5 $57.39
Sugar profile $114.79 5 $573.95
Carotenoid profiles $114.79 5 $573.95
Sample processing $22.96 5 $114.79

Total request $2,047.08

1
The minerals to be tested include P, K, S, Na, Ca, Mg, Cu, Zn, Mn, Fe, Bo, Se

Donation details
For more information or clarification, feel free to contact Donald Brightsmith at
dbrightsmith@cvm.tamu.edu.

Checks should be made payable to Texas A&M University and mailed to:
Donald Brightsmith
Schubot Exotic Bird Health Center
Department of Vet Pathobiology
Texas A&M University, TAMU 4467
College Station, TX 77843-4467, USA

Please put on the check Brightsmith Diet Research

About the Researchers

Donald Brightsmith is a Lecturer and Researcher in Avian Conservation at the Schubot

Exotic Bird Health Center in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M
University. He has a Ph. D. in tropical ecology from Duke University. Since 1993 he has
studied wild parrots in Peru, Indonesia, Florida, and Costa Rica. The results of these
investigations have been published in numerous scientific journal articles and magazine
articles. He is the Director of the Tambopata Macaw Project in Peru, a board member of
Parrots International, an advisor on the Iguazu Macaw Reintroduction Project in Brazil, a
consultant for the Indonesian Parrot Project, and a member of the Brazilian governments
Lears Macaw and Spixs Macaw Conservation Advisory Groups.

Debra McDonald is the Director of the zoo nutrition consultancy Demac Wildlife
Nutrition and the Chief Nutritionist for Dr Mac's Organic Origins. She worked as
Assistant Nutritionist at the Bronx Zoo and as Conservation Biologist at Healesville
Sanctuary in Australia. Although an experienced zoo nutritionist, her work has focused
on avian nutrition for the past 6 years, including extensive field research in Australia and
overseas. She is currently establishing a research facility for studies of avian health
and nutrition in Australia.

Literature Cited

Abramson, J. 1995. Nutritional requirements. Pages 111-146 in J. Abramson, B. L. Spear,

and J. B. Thomsen, editors. The large macaws: their care, breeding and
conservation. Raintree Publications, Ft. Bragg, CA.
Brightsmith, D. J. 2004. Effects of weather on avian geophagy in Tambopata, Peru.
Wilson Bulletin 116:134 -145.
Brightsmith, D. J. 2006. The psittacine year: what drives annual cycles in Tambopata's
parrots? .in VI International Parrot Convention. Loro Parque Foundation, Loro
Parque, Tenerife, Spain.
Brightsmith, D. J., and R. Arambur. 2004. Avian geophagy and soil characteristics in
southeastern Peru. Biotropica 36:534-543.
Brightsmith, D. J., D. McDonald, D. Matsufuji, and G. Matuzak. 2006. Diets of wild
psittacines in Tambopata, Peru. A progress report to South Lakes Wildlife Animal
Park. Duke University Dept. of Biolgy, Durham, NC.
Colton, H. S. 1941. Prehistoric trade in the Southwest. Scientific Monthly 52:308-319.
Gilardi, J. D. 1996. Ecology of Parrots in the Peruvian Amazon: Habitat Use, Nutrition,
and Geophagy. Ph.D. dissertation. UC Davis, Davis, CA.
Greiser, S. T. 1995. The sacred bird. Pages 497-510 in J. Abramson, B. L. Spear, and J.
B. Thomsen, editors. The Large Macaws: Their Care, Breeding and Conservation.
Raintree Publications, Ft. Bragg, CA.
Hess, L., G. Mauldin, and K. Rosenthal. 2002. Estimated nutrient content of diets
commonly fed to pet birds. Veterinary Record 150:399-404.
Klaus, G., and B. Schmid. 1998. Geophagy at natural licks and mammal ecology: a
review. Mammalia 62:481-497.
McDonald, D. L. 2003. Feeding ecology and nutrition of Australian lorikeets. Seminars
in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine 12:195-204.
McDonald, D. L. 2004. Failure of the wild population of the endangered Orange-bellied
Parrot (Neophema chryogaster) and implications for nutritional differences in
indigenous and introduced food resources. Proceeding of the Australian
Association of Avian Veterinarians.
McDonald, D. L. 2006. Nutritional considerations: Section I. Pages 86-107 in G. L.
Harrison and T. L. Lightfoot, editors. Clinical Avian Medicine, Vol I. Spix
Publishing, Palm Beach, FL.
Oates, J. F. 1978. Water-plant and soil consumption by guereza monkeys Colobus
guereza: a relationship with minerals and toxins in the diet? Biotropica 10:241-
253.
Ohlson, M., and H. Staaland. 2001. Mineral diversity in wild plants: benefits and bane for
moose. Oikos 94:442-454.
Rothman, J. M., P. J. Van Soest, and A. N. Pell. 2006. Decaying wood is a sodium source
for mountain gorillas. Biology Letters 2.
Roudybush, T. E. 1997. Chapter 3: Nutrition. Pages 27 - 44 in R. B. Altman, S. L. Clubb,
G. M. Dorrestein, and K. E. Quesenberry, editors. Avian Medicine and Surgery.
WB Saunders, London.
Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry. Freeman, New York.
Stanford, M. 2005. Chapter 12: Nutrition and nutritional disease. Pages 136-154 in N.
Harcourt-Brown and J. Chitty, editors. BSAVA Manual of Psittacine Birds,
Second Edition. British Small Animal Veterinary Association, Quedgeley, UK.