Case Study: A Split–brood Comparison of Formula for Nestling Songbirds (FoNS ) versus Three Facility–specific Diets

Lani Sheldon; Anna Drake

doi:10.53607/wrb.v26.149

Authors

Lani Sheldon, BSc University of British Columbia Animal Welfare Program and Wildlife Rescue Association of British Columbia
Anna Drake, MSc University of British Columbia Animal Welfare Program and Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Simon Fraser University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53607/wrb.v26.149

Keywords:

FoNS, songbird, nestling, protein, diet

Abstract

Thirty–four nestling birds of seven species were used to test whether Formula for Nestling Songbirds (FoNS ) would result in better weight gain, feather growth, and survival rates compared to inexpensive control diets. Ten broods, of 2 to 5 birds, were split into two groups. Some of each brood received FoNS while others received one of three species specific and facility–formulated control diets. Four species (Bewick’s wren [Thryomanes bewickii], red–eyed vireo [Vireo olivaceus], violet–green swallow [Tachycineta thalassina], and black–capped chickadee [Poecile atricapillus]), received a control diet consisting of dog food supplemented with bone meal, brewer’s yeast, and protein powder. With the exception of the swallows, birds on this control diet generally lost weight, and three of the five died; whereas all six birds from the same broods survived and gained weight on FoNS . Two species, (house sparrow [Passer domesticus] and house finch [Carpodacus mexicanus]) received control diets of chick starter with cat food, hard boiled eggs, bone meal powder, and peanut butter, and one species (European starling [Sturnus vulgaris]) received a control diet based on dog food. For these species, the FoNS diet and control diets showed similar development, growth, and no deaths. The authors suggest that FoNS diet is advantageous, especially for small, insectivorous species, but some inexpensive alternatives may be equally suitable for certain species.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Lani Sheldon, BSc, University of British Columbia Animal Welfare Program and Wildlife Rescue Association of British Columbia

Lani Sheldon is a wildlife rehabilitator with the Wildlife Rescue Association of British Columbia. She earned a BSc in animal biology from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and has completed research in avian endocrinology and nestling development.

Anna Drake, MSc, University of British Columbia Animal Welfare Program and Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Simon Fraser University

Anna Drake is a graduate of the Animal Welfare Program at the University of British Columbia, Canada. She has spent numerous summers working with the Wildlife Rescue Association of British Columbia. Her Master’s research focused on improving husbandry practices for orphaned mallard ducklings in wildlife rehabilitation centers. She is currently doing PhD work on yellow warbler ecology and demography.

References

Birkhead, T. R., F. Fletcher, and E. J. Pellatt. 1999. Nestling diet, secondary sexual traits and fitness in the Zebra finch. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B 266:385–390.

Boag, P. T. 1987. Effects of nestling diet on growth and adult size of Zebra finches (Poephila guttata). The Auk. 104(2):155–166.

Cimprich, D. A., F. R. Moore, and M. P. Guilfoyle. 2000. Red–eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY. Available from: <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/527>.

Dawson, R. D., C. C. Lawrie, and E. L. O’Brien. 2005. The importance of microclimate variation in determining size, growth and survival of avian offspring: experimental evidence from a cavity nesting passerine. Oecologia. 144(3):499–507.

Finke, M., and D. Winn. 2004. Formula for Nestling Songbirds (FoNS) : Updates for 2006. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation. 27(3–4):28.

Joseph, N. S., A. A. Dulany, F. E. Robinson, R. A. Renema, and M. J. Zuidhof. 2002. The effects of age at photostimulation and dietary protein intake on reproductive efficiency in three strains of broiler breeders varying in breast yields. Poultry Science. 5:297–607.

Kozlovic, D. R., R. W. Knapton, and J. C. Barlow. 1996. Unsuitability of the House Finch as a Host of the Brown–Headed Cowbird. The Condor. 98:253–258.

Middleton, A. L. A. 1991. Failure of Brown–headed cowbird parasitism in nests of the American goldfinch. Journal of Field Ornithology 62(2):200–203.

National Research Council (US). 2005. Mineral Tolerance of Animals, 2nd revised edition. The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C. pp.97–106.

O’Connor, R. J. 1984. The Growth and Development of Birds. John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY.

Poole, A. (Editor). 2005. The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY. Available from: <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/>.

Serafin, J. A. 1982. The influence of diet composition upon growth and development of Sandhill Cranes. The Condor. 84:427–434.

Urdaneta–Rincon, M., and S. Leeson. 2004. Effect of dietary crude protein and lysine on feather growth in chicks to twenty–one days of age. Poultry Science. 10:1713–1717.

Winn, D. 2002. Formula for Nestling Songbirds: Down Payment on Fitness and Survival. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation. 25(3):13–18.

Wylie, L. M., and P. M. Hocking. 1999. Effect of lowering dietary protein concentration on feathering in modern and traditional turkeys. British Poultry Science. 40 (Sppl. 9):60–61.