Benefits of Full Spectrum Lighting

[vwbug2010]

Hi guys I have been researching this for a while. I have an outside aviary which the parrots love in the sun.

However I have found if I have a nice bright bulb on above the cage my sennies love sitting under it. Its not an official parrot bulb but a spiral florescent full spectrum I think used for photography which only really I guess gives out light rather than all the other benefit of the traditional parrot bulbs. A bit like this:-

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/InnerLight-85 ... 2a4f41b596

My question is shall I ditch this and go for an offical parrot florescent lighting tubes which are 2ft long and use this fitting?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/INDUSTRIAL1-X ... 4d1ede2026

[Wolf]

I would definitely go with the tube style of FS lighting but I would also hang it so that no bird can possibly touch it or their could be breakage with disasterous effects to the birds. I would also make certain that the CRI is 94 and above and that the K Temp is 5000 to 5500 and a UV a and B output of no more than 5. I would also place it no closer than 3 feet to the birds.

[CSLFiero]

In saying empirical evidence that natural light is necessary for a healthy parrot does not exist. It's obvious light is important to a parrot's life and endocrine system functions on it, but in no way for this mean non natural light = unhealthy parrot.

I use a prefer more natural light for reasons unrelated to biochemistry. Natural light has psychological benefits that are intangible. I don't need raw data to explain an improved well being that I believe improves my parrots quality of life as well as my own

These things are sperate from issues of strictly health and I think that's important because if natural light is important to measurable health outcomes, restricting your parrot from natural light would be not unlike restricting your dog or even your child from vaccines. A negligent behavior. I don't believe for a second not providing a parrot with a high cri bulb in the 5300 to 5700 wavelength is negligence.

[Wolf]

It probably is not negligence, at least by law. One of the primary benefits for the parrot of using a full spectrum light with a CRI of 94 or higher, a K Temp of 5000 to 5500 and a UVA and B of no more than 5 is their eyesight. Parrots make use of this part of the light spectrum to see, even though it is invisible to us. With this lighting their eyesight is more acute than ours and they see most if not all of the colors that they are meant to see. Without the light we place them in a much duller and greyer world. Next to a parrot with proper lighting we are nearly color blind, imagine being able to see colors normally but due to the light all you see is black and white like on the old TV before there was color TV.
Just because a thing is not classed as negligence does not mean that it is not, but that is an issue for you to work out. Personally I try to do all that I can to provide only the best for my birds, so except for the purposes of answering question these are not issues that I ever have to worry about. For instance would I want proper lights to see by? The answer is without a doubt, yes I would and that tell me what to do for my birds.

[Harpmaker]

would I want proper lights to see by? The answer is without a doubt, yes I would and that tell me what to do for my birds.

Exactly, Wolf! I agree with Michael that going outside for actual sunlight is better for health and am lucky enough to live where it is sunny and warm enough to take a parrot outside most of the year. I got the parrot lights solely because I don't want Corsair to have to go around half blind inside.

[Wolf]

I live in the Blue Ridge Mountains in northwestern NC so that is not an option for me. In my opinion F S lighting is a poor imitation, at best, of natural sunlight and so I give my birds as much as I can of natural sunlight. I still want them to be able to see well and can't even imagine trying to fly when I can't see properly, it is a wonder and testament to their skill that they don't crash and burn more often than they do with the lighting that many of us provide for them.

[Pajarita]

Hi guys I have been researching this for a while. I have an outside aviary which the parrots love in the sun.

However I have found if I have a nice bright bulb on above the cage my sennies love sitting under it. Its not an official parrot bulb but a spiral florescent full spectrum I think used for photography which only really I guess gives out light rather than all the other benefit of the traditional parrot bulbs. A bit like this:-

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/InnerLight-85 ... 2a4f41b596

My question is shall I ditch this and go for an offical parrot florescent lighting tubes which are 2ft long and use this fitting?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/INDUSTRIAL1-X ... 4d1ede2026

Take that light out as soon as you can, it has a Ktemp waaaay too high, making light too blue for a bird.

[Pajarita]

In saying empirical evidence that natural light is necessary for a healthy parrot does not exist. It's obvious light is important to a parrot's life and endocrine system functions on it, but in no way for this mean non natural light = unhealthy parrot.

Well, if we went only by empirical evidence, we would not know what to do about anything with parrots because there are VERY few studies using psittacines as subjects (they live too long).

[Wolf]

In saying empirical evidence that natural light is necessary for a healthy parrot does not exist. It's obvious light is important to a parrot's life and endocrine system functions on it, but in no way for this mean non natural light = unhealthy parrot.

Well, if we went only by empirical evidence, we would not know what to do about anything with parrots because there are VERY few studies using psittacines as subjects (they live too long).

I don't know but I wonder what exactly you require as proof. We know that these birds have lived for thousands of years with only natural light and are generally healthy when they remain in their natural conditions. We do have lots of evidence to the effects of them living under artificial lights as well as from improper diets. We do have plenty of evidence that natural sunlight affects and supports the bird immune systems in ways that have yet to be duplicated by any artificial light source.
To me you are talking out both sides of your mouth in that in one breath you say that there is no evidence and then turn it around and say that there is. I think you are just trying to get a rise and have no real interest in the topic at all.

[CSLFiero]

I don't think that's fair, wolf. In routinely returning to this topic, so i think I'm qualified as interested.

As for proof, parajita nails it, very few scientific studies are conducted. I personally believe it's because there is little purpose or interest for testing on parrots. The pet market is relatively small and medical testing doesn't translate well to humans.

In effect, the best laboratories we have are the homes where pet parrots have existed. Poor labs to be sure, but to this end, some things are certain and some things are not. No one can tell me what disease or condition is prevented by giving natural light because no one knows. We believe anecdotally that it is good for because it is natural and useful. So are testicles on a dog, but they make better pets without them.

Meanwhile, this natural only approach can make modern advances untrusted and may encourage poor health. As an example, before I got loxley I found it very difficult to find people who used swiffer cleaners around their birds. The general consensus amongst natural only folks was "better safe than sorry". I didn't accept this and in this case I choose the home laboratory to find out. 2 years on and I've yet to see negative health outcomes to various exposure levels to swiffer cleaning agents. This by no means conclusive, but it is a result.

Why is this important? I'm not sure swiffer has any negative health outcomes on parrots, I'm 100% certain that the added convenience has made cleaning more regular. This means less dust/dander, better air quality/reduced likelihood of bacterial or insect infection, and reduced chance of ingesting spoiled food. Well known parrot diseases and conditions linked to poor hygiene are therefore prevent by regular and effective cleaning which is enhanced in my case by swiffer cleaning agents.

I would accept that UV light is also a disinfectant, however it's not the framing the conversation had taken on. Instead there is this unsubstantiated health claim that I can't make sense of and feel a need to reject even though I myself feel natural light is better. Parrots see a wider spectrum, true. Parrots hormone regulation is controlled by light, true. But does that mean you can link poor eyesight/flight or behavioral issues (plucking, night terrors, mate aggression, etc) to non natural light? That's not empirical thinking.