Fatty acid profiles of crop contents of free‐living psittacine nestlings and of commercial hand‐feeding formulas

Abstract

Research on psittacine nutrition is limited, and nestling requirements are poorly understood. This study analysed fatty acid (FA) profiles of crop contents of free‐living scarlet macaws (Ara macao, n = 18), red‐and‐green macaws (Ara chloropterus, n = 5), Cuban parrots (Amazona leucocephala bahamensis, n = 27), lilac‐crowned Amazons (Amazona finschi, n = 33) and thick‐billed parrots (Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha, n = 32). The same analysis was carried out on 15 commercial parrot hand‐feeding formulas. The mean FA concentration of the crop samples of each species ranged from 15% to 53% DM for crop samples and ranged from 6% to 22% for hand‐feeding formulas. Long‐chain FA represented over 92% of all FA in the crop samples and over 81% of all FA in the commercial formulas. Parrot species shared similarities in saturation profiles of crop samples, ranging between 13%–29% saturated fatty acids (SFA), 12%–40% monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and 39%–58% polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). All studied psittacines, except for the red‐and‐green macaw, were within the range of values for hand‐rearing formulas. Palmitic acid was the most common SFA in scarlet macaws, red‐and‐green macaws, Cuban parrot, thick‐billed parrot and in all but one commercial formula. Palmitic and stearic acids dominated the SFA in the samples of the Lilac‐crowned Amazon. Oleic acid was the most common MUFA in all hand‐feeding formulas as well as in the crop samples, except for the lilac‐crowned amazon and the thick‐billed parrot where vaccenic acid dominated. Linoleic acid was by far the most common PUFA found in the crop samples as well as in the hand‐feeding formulas. PUFA were largely dominated by the n6 family, both in the crop samples and the formulas. The data presented on nestling diets of free‐living parrot species provide a foundation for future researchers to test whether increasing FA concentration in hand‐feeding formulas improves nestling development or if species‐specific formulas will be advantageous.

Nutrition of free‐living Neotropical psittacine nestlings and implications for hand‐feeding formulas

“…Feeding parrot chicks a diet excessive in any of these nutrients will have serious consequences for their health in the mid to long term (Perpiñán, 2015). While bioavailability of these nutrients is not necessarily a linear correlation with the quantities, these results suggest that poultry may not provide the ideal model for psittacine nutrition, as previously suggested by Cornejo et al (2021).…”

“…The crude fat concentration of the crop contents and the hand‐feeding formulas were determined at the Comparative Animal Research Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University (Cornejo et al, 2021; Dunbar et al, 2010). The crude fat concentration in the hand‐feeding formulas and in the crop contents of the studied species was previously published in Cornejo et al (2021).…”

“…The crude fat concentration of the crop contents and the hand‐feeding formulas were determined at the Comparative Animal Research Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University (Cornejo et al, 2021; Dunbar et al, 2010). The crude fat concentration in the hand‐feeding formulas and in the crop contents of the studied species was previously published in Cornejo et al (2021). The values presented here for the scarlet macaw, the red‐and‐green macaw and the lilac‐crowned Amazon vary from that original publication due to the inclusion of additional samples in the present work.…”

“…Nutritional knowledge is also needed for understanding survival and productivity (Renton, 2002; Renton et al, 2015), and it is therefore critical to implement adequate conservation strategies (Abramson et al, 1995; Gnam, 1991; Snyder et al, 1987). Research into the nutrition of parent‐fed nestlings has only been published for the scarlet macaw ( Ara macao ) (Brightsmith et al, 2010; Cornejo & Dierenfeld et al, 2012) and the kakapo ( Strigops habroptilus ) (Cottam et al, 2006), in addition to the fatty acid profiles of the crop content of wild scarlet macaw, red‐and‐green macaw ( Ara chloropterus ), the Cuban Amazon ( Amazona leucocephala bahamensis ), the lilac‐crowned Amazon ( Amazona finschi ) and the thick‐billed parrot ( Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha ) chicks (Cornejo et al, 2021). The diversity of food habits and ecology among psittacines makes it tenuous to extrapolate the conclusions from these limited studies to the rest of the family.…”

Age dynamics of the stomach and intestines’ anatomical parameters of the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus)

“…Наукові публікації стосовно біології папуг, і, в т.ч., найбільш поширеного виду -хвилястого папуги, присвячено дослідженням його вокальних особливостей (Leong et al, 2020;Henry, 2021), складу раціону (Earle & Clarke, 1991;Brightsmith, 2012;Cornejo et al, 2021), гематологічних показників (Fischer et al, 2006Scope et al, 2006); новоутворень (Simova-Curd et al, 2006;Snyder & Treuting, 2014), а також інфекційних захворювань переважно органів травлення (Tunca et al, 2012;Püstow & Krautwald-Junghanns, 2017;Powers et al, 2019;Fulton & Mani, 2020). Інформація стосовно особливостей анатомічної будови органів травлення хвилястих папуг є дуже обмеженою, що є дивним на тлі зростаючого практичного і наукового інтересу до питань годівлі і живлення, а також діагностики і лікування хвороб органів травного апарату (Earle & Clarke, 1991).…”