Feather Plucking in Parrots: Can it Get Any Better?

By Cheryl Meehan

This article is reprinted from a past issue of the Exotic Bird Report, the Project's print publication.

Many owners of companion birds have at one time or another been faced with the dilemma of what to do to help a feather plucking bird. Self-directed feather plucking has been implicated as a sign of compromised welfare due to the physical damage it causes, as well as the psychological distress it may reflect. A visit with a qualified veterinarian may provide insight into possible physical causes of this behavior, but in many cases this will not lead to a diagnosis. It then becomes necessary to look at the parrot's environment for clues regarding the origin of this behavior.

Because parrots are so long­lived, many of the birds currently kept in captivity were born to wild parents or are second-generation captive born. Our pet parrots share the behavioral capacities of their wild counterparts, yet their environment is vastly different from the environment in which the species evolved. In the wild, parrots are constantly engaged with their environment, whether it be via social interactions, foraging activities, territory defense, nest selection or predator avoidance. When brought into captivity and placed under close environmental control, the opportunity to perform many of these be­haviors is reduced. A controlled environment may seem ideal for the parrot, as it provides freedom from food scarcity, predation and extreme climatic changes, but the net benefit of protecting the animals from these environmental hazards is not so clear when one considers the potential adverse effects of this protection. This is the paradox of life in captivity-that in attempting to reduce exposure to environmental pressures, the opportunity for envi­ronmental interaction, may also be reduced, resulting in a net effect that is detrimental to the animal.

Broom and Johnson (1993) explain this effect in terms of the expectations an animal has regarding its environment. Some animals in captivity show a generalized lack of activity, which some have suggested is an outward expression of boredom or apathy (Wemelsfelder, 1997). Other animals develop self-directed, abnormal behaviors such as feather picking, plucking or chewing and other forms of self-mutilation (King, 1993). A relationship between inac­tivity and feather plucking has not been clearly established, but compar­isons of the time budgets of parrots in the wild and in captivity reveal dramatic differences.

In the wild, it is estimated that some species of parrots spend as much as 4-6 hours per day foraging for food (Snyder et al., 1987). This may include making foraging flights of several miles to feeding areas, as well as other searching, selecting and eating behaviors. Additional time is spent manipulating food with beaks and feet.

In contrast, in captivity many parrots have a complete diet readily available at all times and are able to meet their metabolic needs easily. A study of captive Orange-winged Amazon parrots (Amazona amazonica) revealed that the birds spent only 30-72 minutes a day in feeding activities (Oviatt and Millam, 1997). The decreased environmental inter­action resulting from many captive feeding methods reduces the oppor­tunity of the animal to exert control over its feeding behavior and leaves it with a significant amount of "free time." In this study, Amazons were judged to be "inactive" approximately 75-90% of the time during the course of a reproductive trial. As foraging behavior can occupy such a large part of a wild parrot's time budget, and as foraging oppor­tunities in caged environments can be extremely limited, it may be that feather plucking develops as a means of substituting self-stimulations for a lack of environmental stimulation. Evidence supporting this prediction is found in a study on Crimson-bellied Conures (Pyrrhura perlata perlata) in which the provision of "activity foods" or foods that take some work to consume resulted in a decrease in self-plucking behavior (van Hoek and King, I 997). Similarly, canaries (Serinus canaria) which were required to work for their food showed a significant reduction in spot pecking behavior (Kieper, 1969).

Others have suggested that feather picking may share a common neurological basis with obsessive­compulsive disorders (OCD) in hu­mans (Grindlinger and Ramsay, 199 I). Like feather picking, OCDs can be very disabling, as recently brought to the public's attention by Jack Nicholson's portrayal of an OCD-afflicted character in "As Good as it Gets.” In humans, clomipramine is one of the few pharma­cologic agents with any efficacy in the treatment of OCD. In an outpa­tient clinical trial with ten parrots, Grindlinger (a psychiatrist in the Dept. of Psychiatry at DC Davis) and Ramsay ( School of Veterinary Medicine, DC Davis) saw complete refeathering in two individuals, with five birds showing a decrease in feather plucking sufficient to allow healing in areas that had previously been inflamed or excoriated (scratched). In addition, four of the birds showed an increase in body weight of at least IO %, and six birds exhibited increased socialization and were more active.

Whatever the etiology of psychogenic feather plucking, it is not unreasonable to assume that enriched environments may at least help forestall the development of feather picking. When choosing an enrichment, what qualities are most important? We, of course, view things through human eyes and may choose toys which are more appealing to us than they ever will be to a parrot. If the goal of the enrichment is to increase the opportunity for meaningful inter­action between the parrot and its environment, then the behavioral capabilities of the animal must be strongly considered. Brightly colored chew toys or even puzzles may not meet this goal if they do not require that the parrot utilize its natural skills or do not somehow mimic the contingencies of the natural environment. There is a need for greater thought regarding the design of environmental enrichments and more research is needed to determine what stimuli will have the greatest positive effect on the welfare of captive parrots. The approach taken by Stolba and Wood-Gush (1984), in which domestic pigs were observed in a semi-natural environment in order to determine the behavioral resources necessary for their well­being in captivity, is an excellent example of how behavior can be incorporated into the design process and provides a framework which can be applied across taxa.

We are just beginning studies on Orange-winged Amazons which should provide some insight into what behavioral and environmental factors contribute to the development of feather plucking and other abnor­mal behaviors, as well as what envi­ronmental enrichments will be useful in the prevention and reduction of these behaviors. Our hope is that by providing parrots with the appropri­ate stimulation we will contribute to their welfare and insure that they maintain their capacity to act, react and interact within their environments in complex and flexible ways.