by Pajarita » Mon Jul 11, 2016 8:47 am
It IS the diet as well as the general conditions of the owner's husbandry that make the difference (and that's why Rickeybird looks so good, Gail) but wild-caught and first and second generations of captive-bred from wild caught parents have a distinct advantage over birds that have been captive-bred from parents that were, themselves, captive-bred and bred from captive-bred, etc. The longer the line goes back to captive-bred, the worse the product bird is. It's inevitable. I once read a study that said that any living human's general health can be traced back to what the maternal grandmother ate when she was pregnant. Imagine that!
I made a mistake though, Naida is not captive-bred, she is wild-caught but on the other hand, I don't really know her age and when I say she is 32 or 33, I am merely going by the number of years that I can trace back in her ownership - for all I know, she could be 40!
The thing with birds is that, in reality and all things been equal in terms of good living conditions, nobody can tell how old they are by just looking at them because old birds don't normally show any signs of aging the way mammals do with the exception of the eyes and the feet/legs but, as we all know, living conditions and diet have a MAJOR impact on our health and this is what we normally go by with parrots. In my personal opinion, the ONLY way you know a parrot's age for sure is if the bird has a closed leg band with the year it was hatched because you really cannot go by what people tell you as, for some particular reason, old parrots seem to be in more demand than younger ones. I don't really know why but it's a fact. You offer a 10 year old bird and a 40 year old bird and the adopter will always go for the 40 year old one. It's the same with three-legged dogs, they are the easiest dogs to adopt out, everybody wants them! Even if they are large and black (the most difficult dogs to adopt out).