Science desk
< July 7	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 8[edit]

Information for parrot health (Goffiin)[edit]

Can you tell me information about what is considered the best amounts for a female Goffin (27 years) with regards to CBD oils, Bach Flower and Echinacea? That will increase the strength of her immunity and improve her feather condition? I read Rosemary Low's book a while ago but it was not specific. Thanks ---Iqbal. 146.200.126.176 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Iloveparrots (talk · contribs) might know something about this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, sorry. Does that stuff even work anyway? Iloveparrots (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this study, a twice-daily orally administered dose of 30 to 32.5 mg/kg of cannabidiol/cannabidiolic acid of a hemp extract to Amazona amazonica parrots was well tolerated and had a "favorable pharmacokinetic profile". It is not clear to me how "favorable" was defined. A similar study using Amazona ventralis with much higher doses (up to 120 mg/kg) also observed no adverse effects, but found highly variable pharmacokinetic results combined with a short half-life of the drug. It is not certain the tolerance can be extrapolated to other parrot species. --Lambiam 13:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bach Flower Remedies are a 25% to 40% mixture of alcohol with water. It is easy find advice against giving alcohol to a parrot, for instance "Human bodies can flush out the toxins from alcohol, while birds can’t. Because parrots have smaller bodies, their organs are more susceptible to damage from toxins." Card Zero (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to backstop what Card Zero has to say here. I generally like to avoid making points from authority here (especially somewhat indirectly relevant authority), but for what it's worth, I have some formal background in (human) physiology, a more than passing interest in physiological systems of other species, and (perhaps most germane here) decades of experience in animal rescue, of both domestic and wild species. And my best advice, whatever the marketing or buzz for a particular supplement or product, is that you never make or allow an animal (especially a small mammal, bird, or reptile) to ingest anything which is not either 1) well-documented as part of their natural diet, or 2) a robustly supported, evidence-based medication specifically advised by a veterinary professional with a doctorate or similar level of education. There is a lot of questionable (or even unambiguously dangerous) information out there connected to such products and the supplements industry (and it's related culture) is home to a lot of it. Supplements are shockingly poorly regulated almost everywhere with regard to even humans: the restraints on the advertising of claims (and in some cases also the transparency of contents or even just general safety) when it comes to products manufactured for animals can be virtually nonexistent in much of the world--including prosperous countries one usually associates with higher levels of regulation.

Now mind you, Rosemary Low does seem to have some genuine bonafide's when it comes to avian care, from the looks of her article, but even experts in ethology can be credulous when it comes to such things. To say nothing about issues with variances in purity and composition of supplements in particular products/from particular production sources: many such products are produced with liabilities for only human toxicity restraining them, and thus may contain emulsifiers and filling agents in them that are basically inert for purposes of human consumption, but which can be highly dangerous for a specimen of another species--and which might as a result vary considerably from one brand (or production plant) to another. In other words, what was safe for one person for their pet where they are at may not be for another individual of the same species. And especially, as Card Zero notes, for a smaller pet. I've more than once seen a small animal go into immediate shock (or else suffer a slow painful death from acute kidney failure) from even smaller-than-proportional doses of substances that would barely impact a human in relatively similar amounts. Even for products with a strong and established therapeutic use in veterinary science, administered by experienced experts, dosing can be quite tricky. It's just really not worth taking the risk for something that supposedly has some long-term benefits as a supplement, imo. And I assume that with an 27-year-old bird, the OP is more likely than not both very attached and also demonstrating a good job of caring for the animal already. Stick to giving them a diet that is well matched to what members of the species ideally prefer in the wild, plus anything your vet recommends (and even then, only the specific brand and product they know to be safe). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]