bluetit dies laying eggs

[valleyforge]

Originally Posted by RKB

I think that's probably a bit extreme. None of the likely diseases are going to be transmissable to other birds or humans after death. I'd remove the bird and any eggs and bung them under a bush. Something else might as well eat them, even if it's insects..

It's not extreme ... it's just professional. When dealing with the sudden, unexplained death of any bird or mammal, whether it was in our care, or just found within or near our property, our standard protocol is to treat the corpse as a potential biohazard. My posted advice just reflects that.

Disposing of the corpse in a proper manner, removes any possible risk of disease spreading to avian or mammalian scavangers. Burial of the body to at least a spade depth, minimizes the chance of it being immediately sniffed out and dug up, whilst the nutrients within the corpse can be safely returned to the ecosystem by the action of soil bacteria.

Because we don't know the cause of death in this instance, it makes only good sense, in my considered opinion, to mitigate, with very little effort, the possibility of disease transferance to human or non-human ... why would you possibly take the chance, even if the perceived risk is small?

By 'just bunging them under a bush', you are completely disregarding the possibility that death may have been caused by the following common bacterial causes of disease: salmonellosis, enterococcus faecalis, motile spiral bacteria, pseudotuberculosis, avian cholera, listeriosis, avian tuberculosis, chlamydophilosis; not to mention viral disease caused by many different manifestations of the herpes virus ... or even avian influenza! It would be a pity indeed if a bird flu pandemic was to start with a casually 'bunged' blue-tit, would it not?

Yes, I do agree that in all likelihood none of these is probably the cause of death here, but the fact remains that we just can't know ... so let's try to be professional in imparting sensible advice, and not get overly complacent in matters that have the potential to be more serious.

Originally Posted by RKB

Again, you don't really need to disinfect anything, or remove nesting material. The birds are capable of handling that themselves. The idea that you need to disinfect nestboxes is a bit of a marketing gimmick. Blue Tits re-use natural sites year in and year out with no obvious problems.

Marketing gimmick ... marketing what exactly? Soap and water? Milton? Again it makes good sense, I believe, when we provide an artificial nesting environment, to safeguard the occupants through simple, well-informed house-keeping practises.

When a nest has been sitting for some time within a nest box, dampness and warmth can encourage the growth of fungal spores on hay, straw, wood chippings, etc., which can prove fatally damaging to the delicate respiratory systems of the birds ... the condition is called aspergillosis.

Emptying the box and washing/drying it out at the end of season is a simple enough procedure ... if you can't be bothered enough to do that, then probably you shouldn't put up a nestbox in the first place. Animal welfare is surely a holistic undertaking, and not to be approached in an apathetic manner.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by valleyforge

Because we don't know the cause of death in this instance, it makes only good sense, in my considered opinion, to mitigate, with very little effort, the possibility of disease transferance to human or non-human ... why would you possibly take the chance, even if the perceived risk is small?

Yes, I would, for the same reason that I cross the road without wearing a suit of armour, despite the chance that I might be hit by a car. I honestly can't think of any likely diseases that could be transferred from a dead Blue Tit in this situation. A diseased bird would be in poor condition, and wouldn't have been laying eggs, for one thing. And once its dead then most of the pathogens will die too. I challenge you to find one example of where a person or animal has become ill after handling a dead bird in a vaguely similar situation to this in Europe.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

It would be a pity indeed if a bird flu pandemic was to start with a casually 'bunged' blue-tit, would it not?

It would also be a miracle! Bird flu has not been detected in this family, and is incredily rare. Still think you're not being extreme?

Originally Posted by valleyforge

Yes, I do agree that in all likelihood none of these is probably the cause of death here, but the fact remains that we just can't know ... so let's try to be professional in imparting sensible advice, and not get overly complacent in matters that have the potential to be more serious.

I'm not sure what you mean by professional - do you get paid for this?

Originally Posted by valleyforge

Marketing gimmick ... marketing what exactly? Soap and water? Milton?

There are sprays available etc. And also marketing birdbox 'housekeeping', which is part of the buying and using 'experience'. But none of this advice is evidence-based. It was dreamt up because someone thought it was a good idea, not because someone discovered that it needed doing. We now know much more.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

Again it makes good sense, I believe, when we provide an artificial nesting environment, to safeguard the occupants through simple, well-informed house-keeping practises.

It's human fussiness, and is totally unecessary. I monitor natural tit nests, and I can tell you that they are re-used most years with no ill effects. Disinfecting a box not only spreads chemicals around the environment (which can lead to resistance among bacteria, the sort of thing which has given us MRSA), but it also kills everything else that uses nestboxes in their life cycle - moths, spiders, snails etc. And consider this: one of the main sources of nest lining for tits is stinky dead animals, from which they pluck fur. That is what the chicks grow up on - I don't imagine it's sterile, but they don't die from it.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

When a nest has been sitting for some time within a nest box, dampness and warmth can encourage the growth of fungal spores on hay, straw, wood chippings, etc., which can prove fatally damaging to the delicate respiratory systems of the birds ... the condition is called aspergillosis.

That's your theory, but I can tell you from practice that I have never detected it and have no evidence for it. Aspergillosis is mainly a problem for seabirds. If you think about where these birds evolved to nest, they wouldn't be much good if they couldn't deal with a damp nest chamber.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

Emptying the box and washing/drying it out at the end of season is a simple enough procedure ... if you can't be bothered enough to do that, then probably you shouldn't put up a nestbox in the first place. Animal welfare is surely a holistic undertaking, and not to be approached in an apathetic manner.

I hear what you're saying, but these are not pets or children, and quite simply they don't need this level of 'care'. Think of what a Sparrowhawk nest looks like - full of droppings and rottng prey remains. Birds can handle the environment in which they live.

If you're taking a holistic approach to the environment, then why not consider the other organisms that rely on old nests for their life cycle? Seeing as the tits can and do cope without this help in the wild, why intervene now and kill everything else that uses a box in the name of 'cleanliness'? It doesn't matter much, I suppose, but it's wrong to give the impression that disinfecting a box is essential. It really isn't. I have over 100 boxes and I never do it, and I don't have any problems at all.

[valleyforge]

Originally Posted by RKB

Yes, I would, for the same reason that I cross the road without wearing a suit of armour, despite the chance that I might be hit by a car.

You do realize that this isn't about you ... don't you?

Originally Posted by RKB

I honestly can't think of any likely diseases that could be transferred from a dead Blue Tit in this situation.

I did give you a list off the top of my head ... whether you can accept those, or can even handle any information that you've not yet gleaned from some scientific paper you've happened to digest, is not really my concern. But, corpses containing harmful bacteria do not tend to spontaneously become sterile when consumed by another creature.

Originally Posted by RKB

I challenge you to find one example of where a person or animal has become ill after handling a dead bird in a vaguely similar situation to this in Europe.

I think I made it pretty clear that my main concern was the possible passage of disease to scavageing animals ... I don't personally worry to any great degree either when I'm handling wildlife, dead or alive, but in an increasingly litigious society it is perhaps wiser to remain cautious when dispensing advice on an open forum, is it not?

Originally Posted by RKB

It would also be a miracle! Bird flu has not been detected in this family, and is incredily rare. Still think you're not being extreme?

That wasn't being extreme ... it was however an example of irony.

Originally Posted by RKB

I'm not sure what you mean by professional - do you get paid for this?

No, of course not ... I used 'professional' in the sense of 'possessing particular skills or competences'. Wildlife rehabilitation isn't just a hobby or pastime, but a vocation requiring a high degree of dedication, and by necessity, the aquisition of some specialist knowledge. I would have thought that being a reputable ecologist required much the same ... except with a salary.

Originally Posted by RKB

There are sprays available etc. And also marketing birdbox 'housekeeping', which is part of the buying and using 'experience'. But none of this advice is evidence-based. It was dreamt up because someone thought it was a good idea, not because someone discovered that it needed doing. We now know much more.

I didn't actually advocate the use of sprays ... you've imagined that.

Originally Posted by RKB

Aspergillosis is mainly a problem for seabirds.

Don't know from where you might have gleaned that piece of misinformation ... perhaps you need to research it a bit more.

Originally Posted by RKB

Birds can handle the environment in which they live.

Of course they can ... when they have a choice. However, if we choose to 'farm' wildbirds by enticing them to feed in the artificiality of our urban gardens, or nest within structures we have provided for them, largely for our entertainment, then I do think our responsibility should extend to being aware of particular hazards and the appropriate provision of care. Keeping a birdbox clean is not really a whole lot different to keeping an aviary or birdcage hygenic. That's my stated opinion ... I'm not suggesting you modify your outlook if you don't want to.

Originally Posted by RKB

I have over 100 boxes and I never do it, and I don't have any problems at all.

Do you mean perhaps 'none that you are aware of' ... or maybe just 'none that you care enough about'.

[Dave Barlow]

I have had a similar experience this year. I have a bird box with a camera in it. The bird had made the nest and looked like it had started to lay eggs. I think there are three or four eggs in the box but the bird has just vanished. Whether the local sparrowhawk has caught her or she has just died of some other cause I will never know. I wonder if it has something to do with the very dry weather this spring?

Dave

[Elizabeth B]

There seems to be no problem with the food supply here in the south, and we've had no rain since April 3rd - and that was only 1mm! We are watching chicks being fed regularly in our three camera boxes, and the clutches were rather larger than usual this year. (You can watch the action via the WebViewer link on our website).

[Elizabeth B]

Originally Posted by RKB

I have over 100 boxes and I never do it, and I don't have any problems at all.

How do you manage to monitor all these boxes - you surely don't have cameras in every one?

[RKB]

Originally Posted by valleyforge

I did give you a list off the top of my head ... whether you can accept those, or can even handle any information that you've not yet gleaned from some scientific paper you've happened to digest, is not really my concern.

Have you detected those organisms in wild passerines during your activities as a rehabber? If not, how have you diagnosed them, or even know that they are a problem? That would require lab facilities, which aren't open to most rehabbers. If you haven't gathered this information yourself, then you have presumably gleaned it from literature, so why knock 'book learning'? Although I do some rehabbing myself, as it happens.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

But, corpses containing harmful bacteria do not tend to spontaneously become sterile when consumed by another creature.

They do in the strong stomach acids of scavengers.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

I think I made it pretty clear that my main concern was the possible passage of disease to scavageing animals ... I don't personally worry to any great degree either when I'm handling wildlife, dead or alive, but in an increasingly litigious society it is perhaps wiser to remain cautious when dispensing advice on an open forum, is it not?

It's reasonable to take reasonable caution. But in this case I'd wash my hands afterwards before eating, but otherwise not worry about it. The risk you're talking about is so negligible in this case, that your caution seems disproportionate. If it was a dead duck washed up among 50 others then I'd be right behind you, but treating this Blue Tit as a biohazard is just a bit extreme in my opinion.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

No, of course not ... I used 'professional' in the sense of 'possessing particular skills or competences'. Wildlife rehabilitation isn't just a hobby or pastime, but a vocation requiring a high degree of dedication, and by necessity, the aquisition of some specialist knowledge.

But there is no accreditation for rehabbing. Dedication doesn't necessarily generate best practice. It's not a competition, but there are 'professionals' who do deal with nestboxes and dead contents all the time. There are several long-running academic nestbox schemes involving many hundreds/thousands of boxes. Some of them are PhD's in parasites and epidemiology. But I don't know any who bury dead birds a spade-depth deep, or "disinfect" nestboxes. There is no perceived need for it. That's why I suggested that your comments were extreme, because it isn't standard practice in the field and there doesn't seem to be a problem.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

I would have thought that being a reputable ecologist required much the same ... except with a salary.

I never said any of them were reputable

Originally Posted by valleyforge

I didn't actually advocate the use of sprays ... you've imagined that.

No, you said 'disinfect', and there are sprays available specifically for use in disinfecting nestboxes (saw them in a garden centre!). I can just about be persuaded that burying the dead bird is a harmless bit of over-caution, but disinfecting boxes is something that I do have issue with, for the reasons given.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

Don't know from where you might have gleaned that piece of misinformation ... perhaps you need to research it a bit more.

Seabirds seem particularly prone to aspergillosis, probably as they don't normally live in a spore-filled environment. So when they're taken into care inland then they require more care to avoid it.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

then I do think our responsibility should extend to being aware of particular hazards and the appropriate provision of care.

I agree to a point, but we do have to keep it proportionate and not over-do it. Or put people off by convincing them that birds and nature are 'dirty' or toxic and need disinfecting. I think it's wrong to encourage people to slosh disinfecting agents around, killing lots of harmless things in the process, when it makes no tangible difference to the birds (we can tell this by productivity measures).

Originally Posted by valleyforge

Keeping a birdbox clean is not really a whole lot different to keeping an aviary or birdcage hygenic.

It is, because it is only in use for a very short period of time, and the arguable main agent of disease (faeces) are removed by the birds themselves.

Nestboxes are just an artificial woodend hole for wild birds to nest in. I think we should foster an attitude of interfering as little in the natural processes that go on inside the box as little as possible. Again, they're not pets.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

Do you mean perhaps 'none that you are aware of' ... or maybe just 'none that you care enough about'.

No, I mean that I do not have any problems at all. And I know this because we have productivity measures to compare with other schemes around Europe and all manner of manipulations. See the reply I'll give to Elizabeth B for how this works.

As rehabbing is not a 'professional' set up (being amateur in the best sense of the word), I'm pretty sure that there isn't much in the way of data to support your stand-point (i.e. you can't say that there is a problem, it's all assumed, whereas others can prove that there isn't a problem of disease in nestboxes).

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth B

How do you manage to monitor all these boxes - you surely don't have cameras in every one?

There are lots of long-running nestbox schemes around Europe, some going since the 1930s. One in the UK has over 1,000 boxes. In academic studies like these, boxes are monitored by manually checking them (usually weekly). The basic data that is collected are clutch size, hatching success and timing, chick weights and survival. That gives you various measures of productivity, which can be compared against other schemes/years/areas etc. Tits are the most studied wild bird group in the World, largely thanks to nestboxes. So there is a very long history of nestbox monitoring, and e.g. the causes of nest failure.

You can also get more techie and use data loggers (detecting temperature etc, and so incubation time) and also RFID tags that detect the birds. Cameras are not routinely used in nestbox studies. You can usually do what you need to without them, but they're good for identifying nest predators of wild nests.

[Jason Green]

Afternoon Anna, and welcome to WAB!

Sorry to hear about your bird. Some first-class suggestions and advice from VF, as usual.

Take care,

Jason