Feeding behavior of cockatiels in captivity

In nature, cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus) feed consists of a huge variety of seeds, fruits, flowers, leaves, and insects. In captivity, their feed is generally poor, as many breeders offer only a mixture of seeds as food, leading to nutrient deficiency and even obesity. This paper presents a study on cockatiel feeding behavior in artificial environments at different stages of development (growth, maintenance, and reproduction), to evaluate their preference from the offer of six different food types (sunflower seed, oats, millet, rice, ration, and a cornmeal based feed or farinhada), and an analysis of their preferences for locations in the cage. No significant differences were observed about the final weight of the birds during the stages of development. Consumption of millet seeds was significantly higher in the growth stage, but at this stage, the birds showed a preference for oats. On the other hand, at the reproduction and maintenance stages, they showed a preference for sunflower seeds. The birds in the reproduction stage were the ones that visited the nest, and the nest grid, the most. Among all the cage locations, all birds showed a preference for the perches.Na natureza a calopsita (Nymphicus hollandicus) tem a sua alimentação composta por uma enorme variedade de sementes, frutos, flores, folhas e insetos. Em cativeiro a sua alimentação geralmente é deficiente, pois muitos criadores oferecem apenas misturas de sementes como alimento, causando deficiência de nutrientes e até mesmo obesidade. Neste trabalho foi realizado um estudo sobre o comportamento alimentar de calopsitas em ambiente artificial em diferentes fases de desenvolvimento (crescimento, mantença e reprodução) e uma análise de uso do espaço pelas aves dentro da gaiola, com o objetivo de avaliar a preferência das aves a partir da oferta de seis diferentes tipos de alimentos (sementes de girassol, aveia, painço, arroz, ração e farinhada) e a preferência das mesmas pelos locais na gaiola. Não foram observadas diferenças significativas entre as fases de desenvolvimento ao que se diz respeito ao peso final dos animais. O consumo de sementes de painço foi significativamente maior na fase de crescimento, mas o alimento preferido nessa fase foi a aveia. Já nas fases de reprodução e mantença a preferência foi pela semente de girassol. As aves na fase de reprodução foram as que mais visitaram o ninho e a grade do ninho. O local das gaiolas preferido por todas as aves foram os poleiros

Feeding behavior of Nymphicus hollandicus in artificial environment

Monografia (graduação)—Universidade de Brasília, Faculdade de Agronomia e Medicina Veterinária, 2016.Na natureza a calopsita (Nymphicus hollandicus) tem sua alimentação composta por uma enorme variedade de sementes, frutos, flores, folhas e insetos. Em cativeiro, sua alimentação geralmente é deficiente, pois muitos criadores oferecem apenas misturas de sementes como alimento, causando deficiência de nutrientes e até mesmo obesidade. Neste trabalho foi realizado um estudo sobre o comportamento alimentar de calopsitas em ambiente artificial em diferentes fases de desenvolvimento (crescimento, mantença e reprodução) e uma análise de localização das aves dentro da gaiola, onde o objetivo foi avaliar a preferência das aves a partir da oferta de 6 diferentes tipos de alimentos (sementes de girassol, aveia, painço, arroz, ração e farinhada) e a preferencia das mesmas pelos locais na gaiola. Não foram observadas diferenças significativas entre as fases de desenvolvimento ao que se diz respeito ao peso final dos animais. O consumo de sementes de painço foi significativamente maior na fase de crescimento, mas o alimento preferido nessa fase foi a aveia. Já nas fases de reprodução e mantença a preferência foi pela semente de girassol. As aves na fase de reprodução foram as que mais visitaram o ninho e a grade do ninho. Todas as aves demonstraram preferencia pelos poleiros, dentre os locais da gaiola.In nature the cockatiel’s (Nymphicus hollndicus) feed consists of a huge variety of seeds, fruits, flowers, leaves and insects. In captivity, their feed is generally poor, for many breeders offer only mixtures of seeds as food, causing nutrient deficiency and even obesity. In this paper we present a study on the cockatiels feeding behavior in artificial environment in different stages of development (growth, maintenance and reproduction) and the birds location analysis within the cage, where the purpose was to evaluate the preference of birds from the offer of 6 different types of food (sunflower seed, oats, millet, rice, ration and corn based meal) and their preference for locations in the cage. No significant differences were observed among the birds when it concerns the final weight of the animals. Consumption of millet seeds was significantly higher in the growth stage, but the preference in this stage was oats. Whereas at the reproduction and maintenance preference was for sunflower seed. The reproductive birds were the ones that visited the nest and the nest grid the most. All birds showed preference for perches, among the cage sites

Risk of Zika microcephaly correlates with features of maternal antibodies

Submitted by Ana Maria Fiscina Sampaio ([email protected]) on 2019-10-10T12:26:15Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Robbiani F D ...Risk.pdf: 2296966 bytes, checksum: 5e47aca9208f3f35c969fd82960279f4 (MD5)Approved for entry into archive by Ana Maria Fiscina Sampaio ([email protected]) on 2019-10-10T13:32:42Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Robbiani F D ...Risk.pdf: 2296966 bytes, checksum: 5e47aca9208f3f35c969fd82960279f4 (MD5)Made available in DSpace on 2019-10-10T13:32:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Robbiani F D ...Risk.pdf: 2296966 bytes, checksum: 5e47aca9208f3f35c969fd82960279f4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019-01-07National Institutes of Health grants 5R01AI121207, R01TW009504, and R25TW009338 to A.I. Ko; National Institutes of Health pilot awards U19AI111825 and UL1TR001866 to D.F. Robbiani; National Institutes of Health grants R01AI037526, UM1AI100663, U19AI111825, UL1TR001866, and P01AI138938 to M.C. Nussenzweig; National Institutes of Health grants R01AI124690 and U19AI057229 (Cooperative Center for Human Immunology pilot project); The Rockefeller University Development Office and anonymous donors (to C.M. Rice); Fundação de Amparo `a Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia grant PET0021/2016 (to M.G. Reis); National Institutes of Health grant R21AI129479-Supplement (to K.K.A. Van Rompay) and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research Infrastructure Programs/OD (P51OD011107 to the CNPRC); the United States Food and Drug Administration contract HHSF223201610542P (to L.L. Coffey); National Institutes of Health grants R01AI100989 and R01AI133976 (to L. Rajagopal and K.M. Adams Waldorf); and National Institutes of Health grants AI083019 and AI104002 (to M. Gale Jr.) and grant P51OD010425 to the WaNPRC (to K.M. Adams Waldorf, J. Tisoncik-Go, and M. Gale Jr.). Studies at WNPRC were supported by DHHS/PHS/National Institutes of Health grant R01Al116382-01A1 (to D.H. O’Connor), in part by the National Institutes of Health Office of Research Infrastructure Programs/OD (grant P51OD011106) awarded toWNPRC, at a facility constructed in part with support from Research Facilities Improvement Programgrants RR15459-01 and RR020141-01; and National Institutes of Health core and pilot grant P51 OD011092 and grants R21-HD091032 and R01-HD08633 (to ONPRC). P.F.C. Vasconcelos was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnológico (projects 303999/2016-0, 439971/20016-0, and 440405/2016-5) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Zika fast-track).The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY, USA.The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY, USA / Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Faculdade de Farmácia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Yale School of Public Health. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases. New Haven / Universidade Federal da Bahia. Faculdade de Medicina. Instituto da Saúde Coletiva. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fudan University. School of Basic Medical Sciences. Shanghai Medical College. Key Laboratory of Medical Molecular Virology. Shanghai, China.The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY, USA.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Yale School of Public Health. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases. New Haven.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Yale School of Public Health. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases. New Haven.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil / Universidade Federal de São Paulo. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.Universidade Federal da Bahia. Faculdade de Medicina. Instituto da Saúde Coletiva. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Hospital Geral Roberto Santos. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Universidade Federal da Bahia. Faculdade de Medicina. Instituto da Saúde Coletiva. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Faculdade de Farmácia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Faculdade de Farmácia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY, USA.Universidade Federal de São Paulo. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.Hospital Santo Amaro. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Hospital Santo Amaro. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Hospital Santo Amaro. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Hospital Aliança. Salvador, BA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil / Yale School of Public Health. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases. New Haven / Universidade Federal da Bahia. Faculdade de Medicina. Instituto da Saúde Coletiva. Salvador, BA, Brasil.University of California. California National Primate Research Center. Davis, Davis, CA, USA.University of California. School of Veterinary Medicine. Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology. Davis, Davis, CA, USA.Washington National Primate Research Center. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Center for Innate Immunity and Immune Disease. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Immunology. Seattle, WA, USA.Washington National Primate Research Center. Seattle, WA / University of Washington. Center for Innate Immunity and Immune Disease. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Immunology. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Global Health. Seattle, WA, USA.University of Washington. Department of Global Health. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Pediatrics. Seattle, WA, USA / Seattle Children’s Research Institute. Center for Global Infectious Disease Research. Seattle, WA, USA.Washington National Primate Research Center. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Center for Innate Immunity and Immune Disease. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Global Health. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Seattle, WA, USA.University of Wisconsin-Madison. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. Madison, WI, USA.University of Wisconsin-Madison. Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. Madison, WI, USA.University of Wisconsin-Madison. Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. Madison, WI, USA.University of Wisconsin-Madison. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. Madison, WI, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences. Beaverton, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Pathobiology and Immunology. Beaverton, OR, USA / Oregon Health and Science University. Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute. Portland, OR, USA.Oregon Health and Science University. Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute. Portland, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Pathology Services Unit, Division of Comparative Medicine. Beaverton, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Pathobiology and Immunology. Beaverton, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences. Beaverton, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences. Beaverton, OR, USA / Oregon Health and Science University. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Portland, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Reproductive and Developmental Sciences. Beaverton, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Pathobiology and Immunology. Beaverton, OR, USA / Oregon Health and Science University. Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute. Portland, OR, USA.Oregon National Primate Research Center. Division of Pathobiology and Immunology. Beaverton, OR, USA / Oregon Health and Science University. Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute. Portland, OR, USA.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Faculdade de Farmácia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Faculdade de Farmácia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Universidade Federal da Bahia. Faculdade de Medicina. Instituto da Saúde Coletiva. Salvador, BA, Brasil.University of California. California National Primate Research Center. Davis, Davis, CA, USA / University of California. School of Veterinary Medicine. Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology. Davis, Davis, CA, USA.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil / Yale School of Public Health. Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases. New Haven, USA.The Rockefeller University. Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. New York, NY, USA / The Rockefeller University. Howard Hughes Medical Institute. New York, NY, USA.Zika virus (ZIKV) infection during pregnancy causes congenital abnormalities, including microcephaly. However, rates vary widely, and the contributing risk factors remain unclear. We examined the serum antibody response to ZIKV and other flaviviruses in Brazilian women giving birth during the 2015-2016 outbreak. Infected pregnancies with intermediate or higher ZIKV antibody enhancement titers were at increased risk to give birth to microcephalic infants compared with those with lower titers (P < 0.0001). Similarly, analysis of ZIKV-infected pregnant macaques revealed that fetal brain damage was more frequent in mothers with higher enhancement titers. Thus, features of the maternal antibodies are associated with and may contribute to the genesis of ZIKV-associated microcephaly

Characterisation of microbial attack on archaeological bone

As part of an EU funded project to investigate the factors influencing bone preservation in the archaeological record, more than 250 bones from 41 archaeological sites in five countries spanning four climatic regions were studied for diagenetic alteration. Sites were selected to cover a range of environmental conditions and archaeological contexts. Microscopic and physical (mercury intrusion porosimetry) analyses of these bones revealed that the majority (68%) had suffered microbial attack. Furthermore, significant differences were found between animal and human bone in both the state of preservation and the type of microbial attack present. These differences in preservation might result from differences in early taphonomy of the bones. © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Núcleos de Ensino da Unesp: artigos 2008

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq