Why You Should Not Feed Bread to the Birds

Ha ha TM, neither do I but I know where to find some just a few miles up the road!!

WendyBartter said:

Ha ha TM, neither do I but I know where to find some just a few miles up the road!!

Now that mention it I got ducks too. In fact I got lots of water birds if I am prepared to go on a fairly short walk. 

Many years ago I was very annoyed about something. I took to walking round the ponds with all the wildlife. Ok the problem never resolved itself but at least I gained an interest in the wildlife. 

Can't stay cross for long watching duck silly antics & the way they move serenely on the water (when not scrapping) is very calming!

WendyBartter said:

Can't stay cross for long watching duck silly antics & the way they move serenely on the water (when not scrapping) is very calming!

I think it depends on how cross you are in the first place! :)

Well ... if you're gonna be picky!! lol

Hi

Unfortunately, this would appear to be nonsense.

Slipped/angel/oar wing is not uncommon in captive birds, not least waterfowl (and especially captive ornamental waterfowl), and is pretty much universally recognised to be caused by excess dietary protein/inadequate levels of exercise in young birds, which leads to premature and rapid growth of the primary feathers, which outgrow the birds' ability to hold the limb(s) correctly in place.

A VERY common cause in captive-raised waterfowl is feeding of high protein chick crumbs for too long after hatch, rather than low protein rearer/grower rations.

Looked at in purely nutritional terms, bread is cooked wheat and wheat is low in low quality protein. In other words, wheat does not contain very much protein that is useful for tissue growth, including feather growth.

If you take a look at the crane "bible" on the International Crane Foundation website, that goes into more detail and suggests that a primary cause is levels of sulphur-containing amino-acids being too high in the diet of young birds, (the problem is VERY common in cranes captive reared by the poorly informed too).

Unknown said:

Unfortunately, this would appear to be nonsense.

This is an unjustified, and potentially damaging comment, which I feel should be addressed.

Unknown said:

A VERY common cause in captive-raised waterfowl is feeding of high protein chick crumbs for too long after hatch, rather than low protein rearer/grower rations.

While this is true, and in captive-raised waterfowl the feeding of a diet that is too rich in protein is recognised as a very common cause of 'Angel-wing', it is wrong to treat it as if this is the only cause.

It is a fact that the condition can occur very commonly in wildfowl in parks etc, where the diet that the birds,including developing ducklings/goslings, eat consists of a high proportion of bread. It is also pretty much universally recognised that diets too high in carbohydrates (& too low in protein) can have the same (or at least a very similar) effect. It might be found that the effect is different enough for a forensic examination to be able to identify whether too much or too little protein caused each case because of slight differences, but both appear to be causes.

Basically waterfowl need a proper balanced diet while they are developing, which means that diets that are either protein rich, or consist largely of inappropriate foods like bread, need to be avoided.

Unfortunately, this is total nonsense - bread causing angel wing. Angel wing is the premature growth of the wing(s) - they grow too fast, in advance of the rest of the body, particularly the muscles that would hold the wing in place. The wing(s) are bone (calcium carbonate in the main), plus muscles, tendons etc. - protein.

Bread is cooked wheat with precious little added. Bread is low in low quality protein and low in calcium. This means that it is all but useless for muscle and bone building.

I would be very interested to learn how feeding something that is very largely carbohydrate, with very little of any use in making wings, produces an acceleration in wing growth. The idea is a bit like planting carrot seeds and waiting for the radishes to appear.

As implied above, there has been some considerable amount of research into angel wing and that shows that it is caused by excess (high quality) protein consumption in the absence of compensating levels of exercise (which diverts some of a high protein diet into being burnt for fuel/energy). If you check the ICF website, they go further and suggest that it is high levels of sulphur-containing amino-acids in particular that cause angel wing.

It isn't as down-to-earth simple as that, because the NATURAL diet of the very great majority of young birds, across all species, is animal matter - very commonly insects for passerines (and many non-passerines). Insects are protein and fat, and next to no carbohydrate (so hardly a well balanced diet, whatever that might be for a duck/goose etc.). However, when waterfowl are left to find their own food in the wild, collecting insects takes a substantial effort, so much of their high protein food is burnt just keeping warm and searching for more insects.

Replacing a food with high levels of high quality protein with carbohydrates does not, cannot, accelerate body/wing growth - it is a biological impossibility.

Now, if you are telling me that providing more than ample CALORIES such that the birds do not work off sufficient protein (and fat) from their abundant natural food, that they are also guzzling, in the form of energy expenditure, I would say that there may be something in that argument. However, that has precisely nothing at all to do with the extra food being bread. Alternatively, perhaps the average park pond is super-abundantly supplied with invertebrate prey so that burning of protein calories is not a significant loss of protein?

At the risk of being censured by the mods I have to say that I am fed up with your pompous and patronising comments on this and other threads. On Sunday I 'Googled' 'Feeding Fat To Birds' or something similar, posted the first link I found (from the BTO) and as I hoped, you jumped on it and referred to sweeping generalisations. You seem to think that the research that you have found (not undertaken, I suspect) is definitive in all cases and anyone who questions the findings has their ability to read questioned. Some of what you have to say clearly is of interest. Your delivery of said information leaves much to be desired. I have chosen not to make this personal before now, but your dismissive comments regarding Angel Wing have forced my hand. I shall feed my birds on a diet of burgers and chips from now on because I cannot find any research on the 'WWW' that says I should not, so it must be ok.