Hmm. Bird UV spectrum lighting. Thoughts?

[bug_n_flock]

I'm putting in an order for the feathered financial black holes, and I was thinking: What are your guys's thoughts on UV lighting for birds? I've never used any before, but I've always been aware that reptiSun had a bird brand, etc. Birds are reptiles, and many reptiles require UVB in order to synthesize D3 and build strong bones. We even use the stuff to synthesize D3 if our diets are lacking. Have any of you experience with UV/do any of you know of any studies published on the subject?

Thanks

EDIT: When I worked at the first bird shop, my boss had a story about macaws with sunburnt faces from the bulbs/being too close. I never looked into this, but it is why I have previously avoided any kind of special UV lighting for birds. Obviously neither of my birbs are bare-faced species, though.

 

[SailBoat]

I'm putting in an order for the feathered financial black holes, and I was thinking: What are your guys's thoughts on UV lighting for birds? I've never used any before, but I've always been aware that reptiSun had a bird brand, etc. Birds are reptiles, and many reptiles require UVB in order to synthesize D3 and build strong bones. We even use the stuff to synthesize D3 if our diets are lacking. Have any of you experience with UV/do any of you know of any studies published on the subject?

Thanks

Well, if you want detail, read this Thread (all of it!) Lighting Information For Birds

Long Story Short: Anytime the Sunshines, get you Parrot into that light! It is the 'Light' that triggers the brain. That light is commonly known as Day Light, High-noon, Blue /White Color.

The most cost effect and easy to use is the 'longest Life' series of LED, Light Bulbs that simply screws into a standard light bulb fixture. FYI: They work best when they are further from your Parrot, lighting the room.

Take care not to use more than 4 - 6 hours per normal day light hours, best when centered around the noon hour. Over use or out of natural schedule can result in sleep problems.

I am sorry to inform you that although birds and reptiles likely shared a common base, that was a very long time ago! Reptiles are very different from birds and use of reptile 'heat rods' can be very dangerous for your Bird.

But at the end of the day, its your money and your Parrot!

 

[WakaWaka]

SailBoat, Thank you.
I was just going to refer them to some of your posts regarding lighting. Excellent information BTW. Thank You !!
We've heard some horror stories about birds injured from improper lighting and also damage to their eyes. I believe the "reptile" bulbs were the most problematic because of excess amounts of improper UV radiation.

We are using a combination CFL (40W equivalent) and LED Daylight bulbs in a fixture that is about 3 to 4 feet from Arika's condo. We've done the "spot" test and did not have any issues.

Her first morning light is a soft one that we turn on in the morning just to wake her up, then about 30 mins later we turn on the daylight bulbs. They stay on for most of the day plus she gets natural light and some direct sunlight from two windows in her room. Towards evening we add the soft light for about 30 mins, then turn off her daylight bulbs. Her soft light will stay on for about another half hour then we turn that off so she can sleep. She seems to be happy with this arrangement and is not showing any signs of stress from it.

We also have an indirect nightlight (battery backup style) so she has just enough light so she can determine her bearings in the middle of the night and it's not completely dark in her room.

Thanks
Kelly, Karl, and Arika

 

[bug_n_flock]

UCSB Science Line

BioKIDS - Kids' Inquiry of Diverse Species, Reptilia, turtles, snakes, lizards, and relatives: INFORMATION

Birds are reptiles. I have more sources, too, but figured this was enough.. I was talking specifically about the Ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum. My birds get "full spectrum" natural light on a natural schedule. However UV specifically does not pass through screens or windows, so they are lacking electromagnetic radiation specifically within that range of the spectrum. Thus why I asked about UV and not full spectrum. So again... Light in that wavelenth range catalyzes D3 synthesis in skin.... Does anybody know of studies on birds specifically in their photo-catalyzed D3 synthesis v dietary supplementation? In some lizards dietary supplementation is 100% inadequate, but in others it is 100% adequate. Split generally on dietary(whole vertebrate prey on the menu typically) and diurnal/nocturnal lines, both of which imply to me that the birds may be better off with UV supplementation...

And, oh gosh, heck no I'd never use a reptile heating element with a bird! I may be eccentric, but I am not crazy lol

EDIT: Sorry, addressing the other thread, I appreciate the link and have skimmed through it, but I am not seeing any linked studies, unless I have missed them? Because I am asking about such a specific thing, not mental wellbeing or daylight hours, etc, I'm looking for firsthand experiences with say blood test results ideally, or published research even more ideally. I may be asking too high a thing, I realize. I don't mean to come off as elitist, I'm just a nerd for hard data..

EDIT2: Unless you have a photometer are are measuring the UV output from your bulbs, there really isn't any way to know how much/if any UV is being produced. Many full spectrum bulbs(and even UV bulbs) do not give the output they claim(if any UV in the case of many "full spectrum" bulbs), and the output typically does not last more than 3-6 months at an acceptable level, so usual advice given on "full spectrum" bulbs is not always applicable to specifically UV bulbs that are definitely putting out what they claim.

 

[SailBoat]

Thank-you for bring up this Subject. As you are likely unaware, this subject comes up regularly, at least once a quarter, if not more often.

The science on the use of UV / daylight products has from the very first study been long and fully funded by the manufacturers' of the product itself! This area was one of the first areas in which the term 'Junk Science' was coined.

As an FYI: Yes, the two species are related!!! BUT, that was a very long time ago. I have no interest in discussing this topic as a simple question of ones CAV will provide the vast differences that time has brought between these two species. Origins and the needs of today are very different realities.

Well-Being! Just how does one measure 'well-being' of a Parrot, or even a Human from a subjective point of view. Yes, the Human can 'say' I feel better, or the Parrot can be seen as sitting contentedly in a Sun filled window (As my Amazon is currently doing).

As stated before; They are your Parrots and its your money, hence your choice!

Enjoy!

 

[bug_n_flock]

You're right, I was unaware. Since I have only been a part of this forum for like a month or so, and never before this have I been a part of any online bird community. This is why I am asking. What I did find on the subject wasn't what I was looking for, though, maybe I missed it though I am willing to grant.

By two species do you mean reptiles and birds, because they are not species? I am confused. But once again I will state: birds *are * reptiles. Not all reptiles are birds, but all birds are reptiles. It is a categorical distinction made based on skeletal structure and features, as well as evolutionary history. Birds *are* dinosaurs, dinosaurs *are* reptiles. Birds *are* reptiles. Just because a platypus lays eggs, has no teats, and is venomous does not make the monotremes any less mammal than placental or marsupial mammals. Nature is weird. Biology in particular is reaaallly weird. It's why, if you are a nerd like me lol, when you watch documentaries about dinosaurs they specify frequently "non-avian therapod". Because birds are derived therapods. Birds are dinosaurs... I'm repeating myself.

I'm not sure at all what you mean by your abbreviation "CAV". Would you care to elaborate please? If you mean something like "common ancestral value"(lol only thing I could think that might fit), time doesn't act at a standard rate in the evolution equation. The crocodiles, bird's closest living relatives, have not changed much at-all in over 100 million years. They are hardly the only example. Time is a factor in evolution, yes, but it is not a standard force in how it is applied(sometimes affecting certain systems or whole organisms at different rates (meaning an animal can appear greatly changed while remaining very similar, think chihuahuas and great danes, or may look very similar but be vastly different, think polar bears and pretty much any other bear, or Giant Pandas and same, or gee: polars and pandas. Superficially they are remarkably similar, but physiologically they are vastly different.)). Our evolutionary history absolutely affects our needs. Profoundly. In a way that nothing else does. It is, in fact, what has *shaped* our needs.

Hmm, thats's disappointing about the studies' funding coming from filthy bulb-pushers. If you have links, though, I think I'd still like to see them. I know how to read and interpret hard data and not rely an the conclusions drawn by the study's authors. If the method and the data are presented, the study has value even if the conclusion is some product pushing garbage or other, or if the sample is biased or too small or some other rather large flaw. Data is data, even if the presented conclusion is utter unfounded garbage.


And your point on the subjective nature of "wellbeing" is precisely why I am interested in specifically scientific data. Serum D levels as a product of various exposure types and durations to UV rad as well as various dietary sources, synthetic and natural would be absolutely lovely in particular. It may be my choice, but I'm looking for data so I make the best, most well-informed one I can.

Thanks


From phone

 

[FlyBirdiesFly]

You're right, I was unaware. Since I have only been a part of this forum for like a month or so, and never before this have I been a part of any online bird community. This is why I am asking. What I did find on the subject wasn't what I was looking for, though, maybe I missed it though I am willing to grant.

By two species do you mean reptiles and birds, because they are not species? I am confused. But once again I will state: birds *are * reptiles. Not all reptiles are birds, but all birds are reptiles. It is a categorical distinction made based on skeletal structure and features, as well as evolutionary history. Birds *are* dinosaurs, dinosaurs *are* reptiles. Birds *are* reptiles. Just because a platypus lays eggs, has no teats, and is venomous does not make the monotremes any less mammal than placental or marsupial mammals. Nature is weird. Biology in particular is reaaallly weird. It's why, if you are a nerd like me lol, when you watch documentaries about dinosaurs they specify frequently "non-avian therapod". Because birds are derived therapods. Birds are dinosaurs... I'm repeating myself.

I'm not sure at all what you mean by your abbreviation "CAV". Would you care to elaborate please? If you mean something like "common ancestral value"(lol only thing I could think that might fit), time doesn't act at a standard rate in the evolution equation. The crocodiles, bird's closest living relatives, have not changed much at-all in over 100 million years. They are hardly the only example. Time is a factor in evolution, yes, but it is not a standard force in how it is applied(sometimes affecting certain systems or whole organisms at different rates (meaning an animal can appear greatly changed while remaining very similar, think chihuahuas and great danes, or may look very similar but be vastly different, think polar bears and pretty much any other bear, or Giant Pandas and same, or gee: polars and pandas. Superficially they are remarkably similar, but physiologically they are vastly different.)). Our evolutionary history absolutely affects our needs. Profoundly. In a way that nothing else does. It is, in fact, what has *shaped* our needs.

Hmm, thats's disappointing about the studies' funding coming from filthy bulb-pushers. If you have links, though, I think I'd still like to see them. I know how to read and interpret hard data and not rely an the conclusions drawn by the study's authors. If the method and the data are presented, the study has value even if the conclusion is some product pushing garbage or other, or if the sample is biased or too small or some other rather large flaw. Data is data, even if the presented conclusion is utter unfounded garbage.


And your point on the subjective nature of "wellbeing" is precisely why I am interested in specifically scientific data. Serum D levels as a product of various exposure types and durations to UV rad as well as various dietary sources, synthetic and natural would be absolutely lovely in particular. It may be my choice, but I'm looking for data so I make the best, most well-informed one I can.

Thanks


From phone

“CAV” means Certified Avian Vet.

 

[bug_n_flock]

Cool, thanks for the clarification.

Vets are very smart people I want to be clear, but they are not responsible for interpreting the evolutionary record and classification of organisms. They are experts on medical issues and the like, and absolutely should be treated as the experts they are within that field, but when it comes to the topic of if birds are reptiles or not, I will listen to those who are experts in that area. Biologists.

From phone

 

[SailBoat]

Certified Avian Vet's (CAV's) are often 'specialists' in Exotic Species, which include reptiles.

Species: Well, neither are Breeds, and Parrots (birds) are species, so what term do you wish to use for reptiles?

From my sheltered, small corner of the World. I choose to consult with my Avian Vet regarding the health of my one and only Amazon.

Biologists, your choice! But, I would be surprised if any would address your question regarding use of reptile 'heat rods' (yes, they provide light) in an Avian application (see next, below).

Evolutionary Affects: The vastness of time and separation creates huge differences even between (in your description) Parrots (Birds) and Reptiles. And those difference are vast.

End of the day: UV waves are dangerous for Humans and Parrots! I have very limited experience with Reptiles, so I will not comment. Provided UV 'heat rods,' some enclosed in a glass tube product UV in a color spectrum of orange-red /white range. The color spectrum that Humans and Parrots (Birds) response to is Blue /white.

Oh and ya, I know that origins of Parrots and Reptiles! FYI: Take great care, that story continues to unfold and is pushing much further back in 'Time.'

May your research bring you the answers you seek! 10-4

 

[bug_n_flock]

Eppur si muove...

Cheers, I'll ask elsewhere. Thanks for your time on the subject, all who contributed.
And FYI: UV is a "color" as you know it, but one you cannot see. The bulb may also produce red orange light, but UV is the color UV.

From phone

 

[SailBoat]

tuum est...


And, may knowledge comfort you ...

 

[bug_n_flock]

Lol this seems so ominous and formal now, what with all the latin. I'm not leaving the forum or anything and I respect you lots for the record. Just on this I think we see it differently and I will seek the information on this topic elsewhere. Wanted to be clear, since so much is lost when people interact through a screen only.

From phone

 

[SailBoat]

"Lol this seems so ominous and formal now, what with all the latin. "

Well I could have provide the statement in German or Swedish and even just plain old fashion, but Latin was what came to mind.

"tuum est..."
And, may knowledge comfort you ...


"Its up to you..."
And, may knowledge comfort you ...

Your choice. But, Latin just provides the tone it was meant to project.

The sayings are very old! But, the combined source of them are from a recently past Mentor. A person who taunted me endlessly! Spreading and finely separated, by twisting my answers /question back onto themselves and upon me! At which point he would with clarity state: "Answers without knowledge of their root meaning brings no clarity to the understanding!"


A recommendation: You have lost you clarity! The importance of the singular question is missing in your quest: "What value is this Parrot to me?" Your goal: "Past forward, but only, without harm!"

You know the dangers of UV exposure to Human Skin. Your Parrot's skin is much thinner then yours, near translucent! Project the likely damage when that skin is exposure! Your current quest serious lacks this reality of the knowledge you already own! You know, that if you elect this route, you will harm!



tuum est...
And, may knowledge comfort you ...

And, as we part ways in 'this' Thread. Know that these are words that are dear to me, carry them well as you continue your many quests!

May you future Mentor's taunted you endlessly!

 

[bug_n_flock]

From your position you think I am being recklessly headstrong at the risk of my parrots, from mine you are stubbornly denying reality. Neither perspective is blatently wrong, but neither gives the whole picture.

I also wish you well in your quests. Like how physics and philosophy are bound to one another despite their apparent incompatibility. We need both facts and common sense. Facts (my side) say tomatoes are fruits, common sense (your side) says "hey, silly, don't put that in fruit salad". Both sides are important.

For the record, though, I do hope you are spending enough time in the sun yourself. We learn more and more how it is important for our health. D3 synthesis, DNA repair mechanism stimulation, mental health, the benefits are myriad. We hear so much about skin cancer and not at all enough about the benefits of sunlight.

From phone

 

[SailBoat]

And, as we part ways in 'this' Thread.

tuum est...

And, may knowledge comfort you ...


FYI: You do understand that you are attempting to 'goat' and 'old goat'! Correct?

 

[Flboy]

Reality? I have to have surgery every six months, and have to protect my arms at all times because my skin has thinned so much! All UV damage! Oh did I mention cataracts forming?

 

[bug_n_flock]

Reality of birds being reptiles, not of too much UV causing cancer and other issues(which I am not arguing against, that is 100% a fact). Which I'm sorry you have to go through, that's truly awful.

From phone

Edit for clarity: I am preaching *balance*. Not desert level UV for us or for birds. Moderation, as in most things, in this is key for us, and I am looking for evidence on if that holds true for birds. That's all. Nothing more. I do not have uv lights on my birds or myself. I am simply asking a question.