The Birds at my Table

by Darryl Jones

  Chris Whittles, the pioneering British bird-food entrepreneur, has long been at the forefront of the “quality” wars. In the early days, he had experimented with peanuts from a variety of sources and found those from China were always favored over those from other places. “It was the higher fat content,” he explained.42 “We tested everything, and the Chi-nese nuts contained around 52% oils; the others were all less than 40. In winter, the birds are desperate for oils and normally try to get them from beech mast or other seeds. At the feeders, they would go for the higher oil content items every time.” But the differences in the peanuts extended well beyond the oils. “Some of the stuff we saw at the docks was absolute rubbish, “ said Chris. “Yet, off it went. Straight to some dodgy operator and soon to a department store near you! Worse, sometimes it was actually poisonous! I remember a large shipment of peanuts being so ‘off,’ it was rejected by the English buyers but was then sent to Germany. I learned later that several of the workers there who helped unload the nuts actually died from breathing the toxic dust.”

  Peanuts that can kill a human are almost certainly heavily infected with the serious toxic substance known as “aflatoxin.” The name comes from its main source, the fungus Aspergillus flavus, which is present almost everywhere as spores—in the air, water, and soil—but becomes a potential problem when the spores settle and begin to reproduce. Substrates such as grains and seeds appear to be ideal substrates on which these organisms can grow, with sometimes lethal consequences for any animals consuming large amounts of infected materials. The issue of aflatoxins exploded into prominence in the 1960s when over 100,000 commercial turkeys from poultry farms in England died over a few months.43 The mysterious illness was initially labeled “turkey X disease,” though the detailed investigation that followed the emergency identified the fungus and the source of the toxins: infected peanut meal from Brazil. Subsequent testing found aflatoxins to be present in a wide range of products such as livestock and pet foods made from corn, cottonseed, and cereals, although mainly at very low levels. Research showed that most animals are apparently unaffected by mild doses of the toxins, but higher levels or even repeated low-level exposure can lead to a range of pathological and carcinogenic effects.44 Birds seem especially susceptible, though humans are also at risk.

  Because of the obvious potential for catastrophic damage to numerous industries—as well as human health (including a degree of panic about aflatoxins in unrefrigerated peanut butter)—an enormous amount of research into these organisms has now been conducted, making this now one of the best understood of all animal toxins. Many countries now have strict aflatoxin limits on grains, nuts, and seeds and impose various levels of testing. For example, both the US Food and Drug Administration and equivalent British agencies require less than 20 micrograms of aflatoxin per kilogram of all pet foods. Alarmingly, a 2006 international survey of a large number of pet foods found the worst products for aflatoxin contamination were wild bird mixes, which consistently had the highest levels, and over a quarter of these registered the toxin at 100 micrograms or higher.45 Similarly, recent surveys of commercial birdseed mixes in Texas and the UK found between 15 and 20% of the products tested to be seriously contaminated.46

  One of the problems with detecting this particular toxin is that even heavily affected peanuts typically do not look or even smell tainted. Without proper laboratory testing it is virtually impossible to know whether the peanuts being sold as bird food are actually safe. It is for this very reason that most of the main suppliers now clearly advertise that their products have been rigorously tested. In Britain, for example, any products bearing the logo of the Birdcare Standards Association (BSA) have been subject to careful and independent assessments using randomized scientific sampling.47 Membership in the BSA requires mandatory testing and compli-ance to a range of quality control criteria aimed at ensuring the highest health and nutrition standards. In terms of aflatoxins, BSA’s acceptable level is stated as “nil detectable.” Despite these important initiatives, a considerable proportion—some claim most—of the peanuts and other seeds sold worldwide as wild bird food has never been tested for anything.

  While a lot research into aflatoxins followed the initial mass deaths of poultry due to aflatoxin contamination, most of it focused on the potential economic and health impacts on the animals and humans involved in these industries. Tests were devised and disinfectants developed for use on farms, but there was little attention to these toxins beyond the farm or fridge. This complacency was altered abruptly with the discovery that aflatoxins were responsible for several massive mortalities of Snow Geese and Mallards in Texas and Louisiana in the 1980s.48 The birds had been feeding on peanuts left in the fields following harvesting. When autopsies were performed on the birds, their internal organs were found to contain aflatoxins at a level the equivalent of between 250 and 500 micrograms per kilogram. In the late 1990s, corn collected from fields, again in Louisiana, where a variety of geese species had been found dead, contained levels above 8000 micrograms per kilo. In Britain, the presence of aflatoxins in wild birds was confirmed for the first time in 2006, in dead House Sparrows and Greenfinches examined at the Institute of Zoology in London.49 Although the cause of death was found to be either predation or salmonellosis in every case, about a quarter of the sparrows and half of the Greenfinches were also found to contain aflatoxins. Given that both species are familiar garden birds, the source of the toxins was almost certainly feeders.

  The implications for wild bird feeding are obvious and alarming, especially when contaminated peanuts are so difficult to identify, so much is sold untested, and, of course, affected birds are likely to die away from the feeder. A further concern is the growing body of research that indicates that prolonged exposure to low levels of aflatoxins can lead to a reduction in immune responses, especially during times of stress.50 This could lead birds to be susceptible to various diseases or less able to cope with the rigors of winter. The deaths of a significant number of Siskins in northern England during a tough cold period, for example, were found to have probably resulted from their reliance on only slightly contaminated peanuts at feeders.51 In milder conditions, these birds may have been less dependent on feeder food and, therefore, less likely to ingest so much toxin. We may know an awful lot about aflatoxins, but there is much we don’t know about their effects on wild birds.

  Selling Poisoned Bird Food, Intentionally

  The aflatoxins story has resulted in many important changes in the way in which the quality of many birdseed mixes are tested and assessed. This includes the manner in which the various components are produced, stored, and transported. Protecting the truly enormous quantities of peanuts, sunflower seeds, and all the other ingredients that are the raw products of the wild bird feeding industry poses major challenges. A plethora of potential dangers abound: moisture, mold, fungi, insect pests, and rodents could all spoil or seriously damage these items, particularly while being held in storage. And as these products are intended for consumption by animals, there are very strict limits on the types of chemicals that can be used in these circumstances. Obviously, you can’t just add any old pesticides to the seeds. In the United States, only pesticides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency as safe for bird foods may be used to protect stored products. There is even powerful legislation to ensure that this is the case, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which mandates that noncompliant chemicals must be clearly labeled as such. For instance, every container of the highly effective antiweevil pesticide Storcide II, widely used to protect stored grains, has the prominent and explicit warning printed on the container: “Storcide II is extremely toxic to fish and toxic to birds and other wildlife.” Nothing particularly unclear about that, you would think.

  Which is why the infamous Scotts Miracle-Gro story, first reported in 2012, remains so shocking.52 The Scotts Miracle-Gro company, based in Ohio, is the world’s largest producer of lawn and garden care products, distribu
ting a vast range of plant fertilizers and weed killers throughout the world. They are also the exclusive agent for Monsanto’s deadly weedi-cide, Roundup. Scotts further consolidated their place in the back yards of the world by expanding into the wild bird food scene. In North America, their mixes, marketed under the names of Morning Song and Country Pride, have become popular and are widely available.

  In March 2012, during an Environmental Protection Agency investigation of Scotts over a seemingly unrelated matter (the falsification of documents relating to the registration of components in lawn care products), several employees came forward to claim that the company had been adding two noncompliant pesticides—Storcide II and Actellic 5E—to packages of their bird food for at least two years. Court documents indicated that in the summer of 2007, two concerned and knowledgeable employees, a pesticide chemist and an ornithologist, approached Scotts management to warn them of the potential dangers of the practice. Despite this well-founded information, however, the company continued with the practice until early 2008. During this time at least 73 million packages of the toxic bird food were sold. The company admitted in court that they had been aware of the risks to birds. The products were finally withdrawn in March 2008 but only 3% of the packages were successfully recalled; enormous amounts of extremely toxic bird food were, therefore, distributed by unsuspecting feeders—and consumed by similarly unsuspecting birds—throughout North America. Because these chemicals affect the nervous systems of the birds, causing overstimulation and eventual re-spiratory paralysis, they are likely to die well away from the tainted food source. This made it unlikely that the people providing the seed would actually witness the effects of the poisons, and therefore realize that their provisioning was impacting their free-living visitors.

  Not so for a Californian couple who fed their captive birds the popular Morning Song wild birdseed, purchased, as they did so regularly, from their local Wal-Mart. Of around one hundred aviary birds kept by these folks, only eight survived, most dying after a single meal.53 Despite the official recall by Scotts and considerable media coverage throughout 2008, the seed mix responsible was obtained in January 2010, over a year after the news broke. A lot of unpalatable questions arise.

  In their explanation, Scotts admitted that their primary motivation for the addition of the pesticides had simply been to protect their products prior to purchase. In other words, as one notable headline put it: “Bird food company puts shelf life before bird life!” The EPA fined the company $12.5 million in criminal fines and civil penalties, though the damage to the brand is probably incalculable. What is particularly unsettling is the suggestion, made by several commentators, that this giant corporation stopped the sale of known poisoned bird food only when its practices became publically exposed, more or less by accident. The inescapable reality of this case is that the company continued to sell what they knew to be a seriously dangerous product.

  Our Role and Responsibilities as Feeders

  This has been an unpleasant, and, in many ways, disturbing chapter to research and write. Although I thought that I was suitably informed about things like hygiene and the risks of disease associated with feeders, the details that emerged as I delved more deeply into these topics made me reas-sess the responsibilities we have as feeders—to the birds that willingly and innocently visit our tables to partake of the food we provide. By providing sustenance for wild birds, we are participating directly and possibly powerfully in fundamental aspects of their lives. The significance of this intervention—in terms of the bird’s well-being (our well-being is another matter altogether; see Chapter 8) and physiology—will depend on many things: the bird’s health, age, experience, and current nutritional state, as well as all the climatic, seasonal, and environmental variables associated with each location. There will, of course, be times when the food we offer matters much more than others; this is something that we will all probably already be aware of. When there is an abundance of natural food available, the chicks have all fledged, and the weather is fine and pleasant, our feeders and bird tables may be virtually bird free as they forage on their own away from our gardens. Alternatively, when the trees are bare, the berries are gone, the frost is severe, the rain prolonged, or the snow deep—or when an individual is weak or unwell—it is then that our feeders may be the difference between life and death. It is during these serious periods that the quality and nutritional state of the foods we provide becomes extremely important.

  At the most fundamental level, all animals require an intake of organic materials in order to fuel the regular biochemical and biophysical activities associated with keeping their bodies functioning. Simply put, “nutrition” describes the process of converting chemicals acquired from outside the body (food) into less complex forms that can be used by the body’s cells to perform their various functions. In other words, food is just a collection of external-originating chemicals that are consumed to enable the internal chemical reactions within the bird’s body (known as metabolism) to occur. Adequate nutrition allows an animal not only to stay alive but also to move, interact, and reproduce, as well as to store some of these chemicals in the body for later use. Inadequate nutrition, on the other hand, means that key cells cannot do their jobs properly, leaving the animal unable to perform normal activities.

  Nutrition can be conveniently divided into five essential components: energy, protein, essential fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals.54 Energy is probably the most elemental of this list, being the output of cellular metabolism that provides the power required by an animal to do almost everything: move, digest, excrete, send nerve impulses, communicate, react—in a word, live. Because of this central role, the energy content of bird foods has probably received the most attention from scientists. The highest energy content of most types of food is related closely to the amount of oils and fats present. Plant seeds are by far the most energy rich of all food types. Indeed, the seeds of modern cultivars of sunflowers are among the more oil rich and hence are some of the most high-energy food items of all. Probably every bird feeder is aware of just how many birds prefer black sunflower seeds, typically known as “black oil,” for good reason.

  Proteins are the building materials of major parts of all animal bodies, composing the walls of all cells in tissues, feathers, and bones. As such, animals must have a continuous supply of protein in their diet to enable normal daily growth and restoration. Proteins themselves are made up of amino acids, which are either manufactured within an animal’s body or acquired through the diet. Because of the importance of dietary amino acids to the functioning of the body, they are known as essential amino acids. The amount of protein required by an animal will vary enormously, depending on what they are doing. Young birds growing rapidly, females producing eggs, and injured individuals repairing damaged tissues, for example, all need more protein—and often quite specific essential amino acids—than birds in less taxing conditions. Most of the seeds and nuts used in bird food mixes have relatively high protein content, but this protein component is lower than many naturally occurring foods. For many birds preparing for the physiological rigors of reproduction, the best and most efficiently as-similated source of protein is found in insects. Virtually all bird species, no matter how apparently specialized their eating preference may seem to be, often include some insects in their diet. This is most pronounced, of course, in the diet provided by parent birds to their nestlings, when their tiny bodies are growing extremely fast with bones being strengthened and plumage expanded. These baby birds may grow up to be strict granivores (grain eaters), herbivores (plant eaters), frugivores (fruit eaters), folivores, (leaf eaters), or even fungivores (fungus eaters), but all will have been raised on a menu of insects as the main readily available source of protein. (Perhaps the most extreme example of a protein-powered nestling food is that of the tropical catbirds of northern Australia and Papua New Guinea whose otherwise strictly vegetarian parents feed their chicks exclusively on the fresh brains of small forest birds!)5
5

  Finally, like certain vitamins, minerals of various kinds are essential for many metabolic functions. Some, such as calcium, phosphorus, and sodium, are required in reasonable amounts and are known as macroelements. Probably the most significant of the macroelements are calcium and phosphorus, which together are the primary constituents of bones and eggshells but are also involved in almost every aspect of animal metabolism. Deficiencies in calcium content, in particular, can be a major issue for captive animals but may also affect wild species as well. Insufficient calcium can lead to retarded skeleton growth, osteoporosis, and eggshell thinning, while too little phosphorus is associated with loss of appetite, rickets, and general weakness. Both of these macroelements are present in a wide range of grains, seeds, and forages such as fresh grasses and alfalfa. The optimal ratio of these two minerals in the diet for proper absorption should be calcium:phosphorus (Ca:P) around 1:1. Excessively high rations of phosphorus, however, can actually reduce the absorption of calcium, even in diets apparently containing plenty of calcium. Although most sunflower seeds have a Ca:P ratio of about 1:7, this is rarely of concern for birds consuming a varied diet.56 Free-ranging birds are more likely to forage on a wide range of items, even though they may utilize garden feeders. Although a lot more directed research is clearly needed on this issue, the message would seem to be fairly obvious: a varied diet is best.

  The British Birdcare Standards Association57 has devised a detailed set of “Compulsory Standards for Seed Mixes” to which bird-approved food products must conform. The aim of these standards is to ensure that products sold as bird food have appropriate balances and levels of the main nutrients discussed above. The full BSA list is far too long to describe here, but minimum and maximum proportions of a large number of components are proscribed for seed mixes. For example, Group 1 items, which includes black sunflower, sunflower hearts, and nyger, must comprise a minimum of 20% of the total mix when combined. Group 2 items, on the other hand, must not exceed 80% combined; these include canary seed, millet, sorghum, and safflower. Group 3 items (19 are listed including white sunflower, linseed, buckwheat, and whole oats) together should not comprise more than 20%, and so on. Only six items are considered to be of sufficiently high nutritional value for wild birds that they can be sold as “straights”: suitable to be consumed safely alone. These are black sunflowers, sunflower hearts, peanut granules, nyger, live foods, and dried mealworms.