Suggested diet for an African Ringneck

[Wolf]

Well although it was posted towards the end of your posts, I think that due to it even being there is reason enough for me to make an observation or two. It is up to you whether you read Pajarita's posts or not, I do think that you may be doing yourself a disservice by it , but it is your choice. I do hope that you are not going to respond to me in the same manner when I get my information pulled back together, because I too, will probably be debating this or that point of what you have to say. I may agree with some of it but am still likely to debate other points whether you deem them to be of little importance or not and truthfully that is all that Pajarita did. Un fortunately she thought the matter of B-12 was more important than you did, but since you still bring it up it does seem that it is important to you as well. Personally, I think that debate is a wonderful tool for learning and at one time all of higher learning was dependent upon debate. That is really all I have about this reading or not f anyone's post, in this case Pajarita's and do not plan on getting trapped in the middle of it, that is between the two of you.

The rest of it is great information for me, but I am extremely busy for now and am falling behind. I am saving the links so that I can read them as I can. Thanks to both of you for the links as I will be reading them all. What do you think about putting this conversation on hold and opening out own thread to continue with it, say in about a week?

[Pajarita]

That's quite alright. I don't mind. I just would like to know what this lady's qualifications are. She comes to this site with two guns blazing, criticizing methods and food as if she was an unquestionable renown food critic and we the McDonald's chefs and all she uses is data that has been misunderstood (protein studies), obsolete and questionable (1998! and written by 'experts' when we all know there is no such thing when it comes to parrot dietary needs -not even in 2016), unsubstantiated by links (B12 need and site of production), or from species that cannot compare (chickens and humans) and all without even opening herself to scrutiny by introducing herself and telling us what food and methods she uses. Not what one would call a good debater to say the least.

To be honest, tielfan, I think that the real reason why you don't want to address my postings is because I am able to refute all your points...

[tielfan]

Thanks Wolf. I greatly enjoy having an evidence-based discussion, but that isn't what I was having with Pajarita since I was the only one providing any evidence. I was ignored whenever I asked to see backup for a statement, and the constant effort to change the subject away from the main topic was annoying. I don't mind a little digression, but I was primarily looking for evidence that the level of protein in ordinary foods is dangerous and it wasn't being provided.

The triglyceride issue called me back to this thread, because I don't see the connection between triglycerides and dietary protein. I haven't looked at the issue in any depth so I can't say much about it one way or another. But I do know that triglycerides are classified as lipids (fat) because they're composed of 3 fatty acids and a sugar. Cholesterol and triglycerides in humans are primarily associated with fat and carbohydrate consumption, and there's at least one study finding that replacing dietary carbs with protein reduces cholesterol and triglyceride levels in humans. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10497712

I think the word "lipoprotein" might have caused some confusion (that's what the HDL and LDL in cholesterol is), but lipoproteins are synthesized in the body not taken from the diet. At its core this is a fat metabolism issue and dietary protein doesn't seem to come into the equation in any significant way that I can see. http://www.merckmanuals.com/professiona ... metabolism

Feeding animal protein to birds has become controversial because of fears about the cholesterol in animal fat, and I HAVE looked at the cholesterol issue from that angle. My animal protein article at http://www.littlefeatheredbuddies.com/i ... nimal.html has links to several studies on atherosclerosis in birds. The Bavelaar & Beynan paper is available in full at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1 ... 04.9695168 It discusses the role of diet, and there's a considerable amount of talk about fat consumption but protein is never mentioned. As far as I know, the Beaufrere paper at https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... and_Beyond is not available for free public access, but I have a copy of the full paper. It mentions high-energy and high-fat diets as a possible risk factor but does not mention dietary protein.

As mentioned in my article and the Bavelaar & Beynan paper linked above, it appears that Omega 3 fats in the diet have a protective effect. The gloop recipe has a lot of flax seed in it so that's expected to be beneficial. The "geek talk" section at the bottom of my Fats article has links to information on Omega 3 requirements. http://www.littlefeatheredbuddies.com/i ... -fats.html For humans it's recommended for Omega 3 fats to be at least 0.5% of total energy intake. If a standard has been established for birds I'm not aware of it, but it looks like the avian professional community is going along with the level recommended for humans.

[JessiMuse]

:lol: That's quite alright. I don't mind. I just would like to know what this lady's qualifications are. She comes to this site with two guns blazing, criticizing methods and food as if she was an unquestionable renown food critic and we the McDonald's chefs and all she uses is data that has been misunderstood (protein studies), obsolete and questionable (1998! and written by 'experts' when we all know there is no such thing when it comes to parrot dietary needs -not even in 2016), unsubstantiated by links (B12 need and site of production), or from species that cannot compare (chickens and humans) and all without even opening herself to scrutiny by introducing herself and telling us what food and methods she uses. Not what one would call a good debater to say the least.

To be honest, tielfan, I think that the real reason why you don't want to address my postings is because I am able to refute all your points...

But Paj, why are studies done in 1998 considered irrelevant, when studies from a much earlier time are constantly used as references in some topics today? If anything, I would think that a study done more recently than past studies would seem more relevant.

[ParrotsForLife]

Paj McDonalds was a bad example seen as its not real food lol and we feed our Parrots real food.

[Pajarita]

:lol: That's quite alright. I don't mind. I just would like to know what this lady's qualifications are. She comes to this site with two guns blazing, criticizing methods and food as if she was an unquestionable renown food critic and we the McDonald's chefs and all she uses is data that has been misunderstood (protein studies), obsolete and questionable (1998! and written by 'experts' when we all know there is no such thing when it comes to parrot dietary needs -not even in 2016), unsubstantiated by links (B12 need and site of production), or from species that cannot compare (chickens and humans) and all without even opening herself to scrutiny by introducing herself and telling us what food and methods she uses. Not what one would call a good debater to say the least.

To be honest, tielfan, I think that the real reason why you don't want to address my postings is because I am able to refute all your points...

But Paj, why are studies done in 1998 considered irrelevant, when studies from a much earlier time are constantly used as references in some topics today? If anything, I would think that a study done more recently than past studies would seem more relevant.

The 1998 reference was not to a study, it was to a panel of 'experts' put together by the AAV (Association of Avian Vets) that got together in Chicago to put out legal nutritional guidelines for processed pet bird products (namely, pellets) but it was never meant to be used as a reference for any other type of food OR even used as a final reference for pellets nutritional values. The guidelines were what it was considered the 'safest' nutritional levels at the time and only as a starting point because the recommendation was that they meet every 2 to 3 years to improve it until they had something that was more accurate (they were planning on relying on both new studies as well as anecdotal references from the avian vets members). They were very aware of their limitations in terms of knowledge as they was almost no knowledge of parrots nutritional needs back then (there were the Roudybush studies in 80s (83?) but little else). I quote from the report: " There are a number of obstacles to developing meaningful nutrient recommendations for pet birds. One of the biggest is the availability of accurate nutrient values. Nutritionists and feed formulators know the metabolizable energy content of corn, soybean mela, and other common ingredients for chickens, turkeys, swine, and cattle. However, these values may not be applicable for ingredients in pet bird feeds" See what I mean? They KNEW they simply did not know enough! And, if you look at the composition of this panel, you will see that the 'expert' in the name of the panel is actually very generous... Not because they did not want to put experts there but because there weren't any! You have Susan Crissey, zoo director, wonderful woman and professional who devoted her entire life to improving zoo animals diets but whose main expertise was howler monkeys; then you have Milton Sunde, a poultry husbandry professor and Duane (his first name was actually misspelled on the report) Ullray, a swine husbandry professor; Mark Hagen with a masters in Agricultural Studies and the grand total of a semester in Avian Medicine courses and a pellet manufacturer (thanks to working for his daddy's company), Dick Grau was also a chicken guy but he made his business to learn about parrots and collaborated in the Roudybush studies as well as the actual recipe of the first parrot pellet ever (which was based on a chicken feed recipe, mind you!) and, last but not least, the chair of the panel, Dr. Randal Brue who, in my opinion, was the guy who knew as much as anybody could have known back then about parrot nutrition. He was also Kaytee's CEO - not that this would recommend him in my eyes because I think that Kaytee is not a good product even when we talk pellets but he wrote the Avian Nutrition chapter for the Harrison's Avian Medicine and he does know what he is talking about even if it doesn't translate into the Kaytee's products.

Now, these guys had the best intentions but what they put out is not something that was meant to be the gospel on pet parrot nutrition! It was just the safest foundation of what should have become a labor of years using new information as building blocks. Unfortunately, this never happened. I have no idea why but the panel never met again and nobody ever took up the torch... But, in any case, it was only for pellets and not for any other form of diet. Sheesh, these people even put out a chart for passerine pellets, something completely useless as the species of passerines used as pets are mostly all natural seed eaters.

As to dietary studies from the early 90's or before that... I don't remember ever actually referring to any on this site. I always try to post the latest studies on everything - not that there is a lot of them on parrots, granted!