Why You Should Not Feed Bread to the Birds

Ellieloo said:

Ill just keep feeding them like Ive always done, they havent done bad on it all these years,

Feeding granary or wholemeal bread is generally thought to be better than white bread, and you also said that you feed corn, so you are providing better food than many people do. Malnutrition is likely to be more of a problem where so many people feed the ducks that they consume very little else.

I would still personally avoid feeding any young birds before they are fully grown, but if you are feeding birds that are already adults you are unlikely to be causing any major problems, especially if they are not existing solely on a diet of bread, so carry on. 

RoyW - some of us have better and/or more pressing things to do than post here - when I have time I will find and post some links. Please read my posts in full, not edited highlights.

If you have some research to suggest that wings are other than protein and bone, please post it here. If you have some research that essential amino-acids are not required for wing muscle growth, please post that too. If you have any research that suggests that waterfowl do not need to eat protein to grow, but can synthesise it, please post that too.

Bread has very low levels of low grade protein so can support very meagre muscle growth - unless you have research that suggests the contrary.

If you read my posts in full you will see that I have stated that angel wing is very common in many species and is easy to produce (though, admittedly by feeding high protein feed and allowing insufficient exercise).

Take a look at feed company websites - feeds directed at waterfowl are VERY similar to partridge and pheasant feeds (and turkey) - there are numerous UK brands such as Sportsman, Marsden, Fenland, and Charnwood, amongst many.

Please, please post a link to RESEARCH, rather than idle conjecture, that a high carb, low essential amino-acid food (bread) produces angel-wing. There is masses upon masses, upon masses of statements that this is so, but where oh where is there any scientifically based research that says so?

If bread/wheat is such a good source of material for muscle growth, why does the world spend billions upon billions of dollars each and every year on soy and fishmeal (and other high quality protein sources) for stock feed? Why do stock feeds not use the very cheap high protein processing fractions of milling, such as wheatfeed, or the maize equivalent - (60% protein) prairie meal (so cheap that the US uses it as garden mulch), as a very major or sole protein source in feed? Could it be because cereal proteins are rubbish for producing muscle growth? Possibly because they are all substantially deficient in lysine, and other essential amino-acids to lesser degrees?

Or are you suggesting that bread has some "secret ingredient" that causes any protein (actually, essential amino-acids) that is suitable, to preferentially divert to wing growth?

The natural food for the huge majority of young ducks, is invertebrates - which are just protein and fats as major dietary components (essentially no carb's). Goslings mostly naturally eat the fast-growing tips of grasses and forbes, which although very high fibre and water, are often appreciably over 20% (poor quality) protein. These facts are also easy to check online.

Unknown said:

some of us have better things to do than post here

Whether you understand this or not, Roy W is a very well respected and long standing member of this Community who has a deep affinity with birds and wildlife in general and who has contributed positively and intelligently to the Forum over several years and his opinions are greatly valued.     As the Moderators will possibly reiterate from their Code of Conduct, we do not use capital letters in reply or direct personal attacks which are both insulting and offensive.     I am at a loss to know what your objective is on this Community other than to criticise, nit pick and try impress us all with your superior Google Scholar knowledge that you keep reminding us of constantly and to continue quoting links to papers/reports written by others that may or may not be definitive, as with most things in nature, nothing is absolute.    Going back to the Suet thread, I see you must have gone back into the archives of this forum to find a contentious topic which you resurrected after it had been dormant for five years.     I myself would prefer to spend that time oberserving what nature has to offer us outside our front door.    

To quote your first line in response to Roy, if you really do have better things to do than post on here then please do so.  

Hi-

just found this thread-

I always thought that angel wing and other deformities had higher incidence rates in captive bred birds ( of many species) ; possibly due to the amount of physical handling involved at critical times in the growth from chick OR the difference in diet ( and timing) between captive and naturally parented chicks;

Others may differ

S

Unknown said:

some of us have better and/or more pressing things to do than post here - when I have time I will find and post some links.

Condescending comments like this are unnecessary Dave, and can lead to threads like this getting locked. I'm going to assume that you had no intention of this comment (and others) sounding the way that they do come across, and I suggest that others try and do the same. I do not want to see this thread locked because if you do provide support for your assertions it could potentially be very interesting. I also do not have much time to spend posting on this forum, but when In find a thread interesting I can find time to post (finding links should take very little time if the information is as readily available as you suggest).

Unknown said:

Please read my posts in full, not edited highlights.

I have read all of your posts in full, the fact that I have chosen only to reply to selected parts is because I do not have the time, or any reason, to reply to everything, and without meaning to be rude, perhaps you should also read posts in full.

Unknown said:

If you read my posts in full you will see that I have stated that angel wing is very common in many species and is easy to produce (though, admittedly by feeding high protein feed and allowing insufficient exercise).

Where have I said anything different? The point that I have made is that it also occurs in species that naturally have a very high protein diet and therefore shouldn't be affected by protein levels, and these can be wild birds (which are unlikely to have their exercise restricted).

Unknown said:

Please, please post a link to RESEARCH, rather than idle conjecture, that a high carb, low essential amino-acid food (bread) produces angel-wing. There is masses upon masses, upon masses of statements that this is so, but where oh where is there any scientifically based research that says so?

I have already said that I am not aware of any proper research that has demonstrated a link (I have seen reference to a study of geese in Swedish parks that may have suggested a link, but haven't read the original source).

The rest of the post that these quotes were taken from is asking me to provide research that I have never suggested exists, and implying that I have tried to make arguments that I have never suggested. Of course protein/amino acids are needed for muscle growth and calcium is needed for bones - where have I said that they aren't? Obviously the birds are getting these from somewhere. However, since we both agree that these are essential components of the diet of growing birds, and that bread is very poor in essential nutrients, is it not reasonable to argue that feeding bread should be avoided?

If you carefully read through my prior posts you will see that I have never asserted that bread does cause 'angel wing', only that a diet consisting largely of bread might be a factor (and that it is often recognised as being a factor - rightly or wrongly). I am also disagreeing with your implication that the cause of the condition is known to be diets that have a protein content that is too high for the species concerned. There have been (a limited number) of studies that have found that excessive protein does seem to lead to the condition, but this is not necessarily the only cause, and may not even be the main dietary consideration.

Unknown said:

I have also attacked precisely no-one, although I have pointed out glaring mistakes/omissions/inconsistencies etc., where they exist, not least that you cannot grow wings from bread/carbohydrate - a very simple biological/nutritional fact.

So far all that you have really done is assert that you are correct, and that other people are wrong (often using phrasing that seems very condescending). Sometimes, as is the case here, you are 'correcting' things that no one has actually claimed. No one has suggested that 'wings can be grown from bread/carbohydrates', that is a straw man that you are arguing against. 

Unknown said:

I do know that precious few people here seem willing and/or able to use Google (Scholar). It is a simple fact that if I were to post quotes from books such as Comparative Avian Nutrition (Klasing), or Avian Energetics and Nutritional Ecology (Carey), near certainly no-one here could check them, so we are stuck with internet links

Can you really not see how comments like this come will be come across while you are typing them? 

Unknown said:

I would also have to say that there seems to be a requirement here for countless "proofs" of anything that might refute long-established folklore which has no supporting evidence at all.

I don't require 'proof' of anything but it is always necessary to be willing to support your claims if you expect people to listen to you, and I have openly admitted that I know of no evidence that links bread with 'angel wing' with any certainty. However, what shouldn't be in doubt is that bread is nutritionally poor and is not a good substitute for a natural diet for ducks, geese and swans.