Zoo flamingo breeding delayed by dry spring
The start of a zoo's flamingo breeding season has been delayed for the longest time on record by dry spring weather.
Blackpool Zoo said it had shipped in four tonnes of sand to encourage the birds to construct their nests but it was only since the rain had returned that they had begun building.
The nests, which are mounds made of sand and water, need to be located where they can stay wet as the flamingos continually build them throughout the incubation period.
Keepers said it was "a sight to behold" when the birds finally began nesting and once the "most confident flamingo" decides to lay an egg the rest follow.
Luke Forster from the zoo, said Caribbean flamingos were very social birds known for their "elaborate" nesting behaviours.
"They build their nests in large colonies, carefully shaping the mounds to protect their eggs, which are incubated by both and male and female birds," he said.
"Both genders also produce crop milk to feed the chicks once they have hatched and, in some cases, pairs of the same sex will take on the responsibility of incubating and raising a chick, even if the egg isn't theirs."
When the chicks hatch they will have grey-white down and a straight beak.
They develop their pink colour over a few years as they consume foods rich in the carotenoid pigments that make some plants, algae and crustaceans red, orange, pink and yellow.
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Lancashire on Sounds and follow BBC Lancashire on Facebook, X and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
Blackpool-born gorilla starts new life in India
Zoo's delight at birth of endangered orangutan
Blackpool's tourist numbers on the rise
Pelican rescued after being found 65 miles from zoo
Blackpool Zoo
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Women less likely to get life-saving care for deadly heart condition
A new analysis reveals that women are less likely than men to receive treatment for aortic stenosis, a potentially fatal heart condition. Researchers discovered that women are 11% less likely to be referred to a hospital specialist following a diagnosis of the heart valve disease. Academics noted that the findings reveal "inequities in management and care of this common and serious condition." The study also found differences in care among south Asian and black patients, as well as those from poorer backgrounds. Aortic stenosis, a narrowing of the aortic valve or the area immediately around it, leads to obstruction of the blood flow from the heart, which leads to symptoms including dizziness, fatigue, chest pain and breathlessness. The condition is more common in elderly people. It is not possible to reverse but treatments can include a transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or valve replacement surgery. If left untreated it can lead to serious complications, including heart failure, heart rhythm abnormalities, and death. The analysis suggests some people are less likely to receive this treatment. Experts from the University of Leicester examined GP data on 155,000 people diagnosed with aortic stenosis between 2000 and 2022 in England. Presenting their findings to the British Cardiovascular Society conference in Manchester, experts said as well as women being less likely to be referred for hospital care, they are 39% less likely to have a procedure to replace their aortic valve. Researchers also found people living in poorer neighbourhoods are 7% less likely to be referred for hospital care after a diagnosis compared to people from wealthier neighbourhoods. Meanwhile, black patients are 48% less likely to undergo a procedure to replace their aortic valve compared to white patients. South Asian patients are 27% less likely to undergo a procedure compared to their white counterparts, according to the study, which was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and supported by NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre. Dr Anvesha Singh, associate professor at the University of Leicester and consultant cardiologist, who was involved in the research, said: 'Previous studies have shown lower rates of valve replacement in women, and clinicians had assumed that women were less likely to be diagnosed with aortic stenosis. 'This analysis using large, real-world data clearly shows that this is not the case, giving us the clearest picture yet of what is happening in day-to-day clinical practice. 'Our study highlights potential inequities in management and care of this common and serious condition. More research is needed to understand the reasons for this and the true prevalence of aortic stenosis in different groups.' Dr Sonya Babu-Narayan, clinical director at the British Heart Foundation, which supported the research, and consultant cardiologist, said: 'This study of over 150,000 GP records has unveiled disparities in access to aortic valve treatment for women, south Asian and black people, and people living in more deprived communities. 'We don't yet have the full picture, but these findings are concerning and we need more research to understand what is driving the differences seen. 'This will be crucial to enable action to address any underlying causes stopping some people from having access to the heart valve treatment and care they need, when they need it.'
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Real risk Rachel Reeves's spending review will be about the departments that have lost out
"It's a big deal for this government," says Simon Case. "It's the clearest indication yet of what they plan to do between now and the general election, a translation of their manifesto. "This is where you should expect the chancellor to say, on behalf of the government: 'This is what we're about'." As the former cabinet secretary, Mr Case was the man in charge of the civil service during the last spending review, in 2021. On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will unveil the Labour government's priorities for the next three years. But it's unclear whether it will provide all that much of an answer about what it's really about. Unlike the Autumn budget, when the chancellor announced her plans on where to tax and borrow to fund overall levels of spending, the spending review will set out exactly how that money is divided up between the different government departments. Since the start of the process in December those departments have been bidding for their share of the cash - setting out their proposed budgets in a negotiation which looks set to continue right up to the wire. This review is being conducted in an usual level of detail, with every single line of spending assessed, according to the chancellor, on whether it represents value for money and meets the government's priorities. Budget proposals have been scrutinised by so called "challenge panels" of independent experts. It's clear that health and defence will be winners in this process given pre-existing commitments to prioritise the NHS - with a boost of up to £30bn expected - and to increase defence spending. On Sunday morning, the government press release trumpeted an impressive-sounding "£86bn boost" to research and development (R&D), with the Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle sent out on the morning media round to celebrate as record levels of investment. We're told this increased spending on the life sciences, advanced manufacturing and defence will lead to jobs and growth across the country, with every £1 in investment set to lead to a £7 economic return. But the headline figure is misleading. . That £86bn has been calculated by adding together all R&D investment across government for the next three years, which will reach an annual figure of £22.5bn by 2029-30. The figure for this year was already set to be £20.4bn; so while it's a definite uplift, much of that money was already allocated. Read More: Peter Kyle also highlighted plans for "the most we've ever spent per pupil in our school system". I understand the schools budget is to be boosted by £4.5bn. Again, this is clearly an uplift - but over a three-year period, that equates to just £1.5bn a year (compared with an existing budget of £63.7bn). It also has to cover the cost of , and the promised uplift in teachers' pay. In any process of prioritisation there are losers as well as winners. We already know about planned cuts to the Department of Work and Pensions - but other unprotected departments like the Home Office and the Department of Communities and Local Government are braced for a real spending squeeze. We've heard dire warnings about austerity 2.0, and the impact that would have on the government's crime and policing priorities, its promises around housing and immigration, and on the budgets for cash-strapped local councils. The chancellor wants to make it clear to the markets she's sticking to her fiscal rules on balancing the books for day-to-day the decision to loosen the rules around borrowing to fund capital investment have given her greater room to manoeuvre in funding long-term infrastructure projects. That's why we've seen her travelling around the country this week to promote the £15.6bn she's spending on regional transport projects. The Treasury team clearly wants to focus on promoting the generosity of these kind of investments, and we'll hear more in the coming days. But there's a real risk the story of this spending review will be about the departments which have lost out - and the promises which could slip as a result.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Real risk Rachel Reeves's spending review will be about the departments that have lost out
"It's a big deal for this government," says Simon Case. "It's the clearest indication yet of what they plan to do between now and the general election, a translation of their manifesto. "This is where you should expect the chancellor to say, on behalf of the government: 'This is what we're about'." As the former cabinet secretary, Mr Case was the man in charge of the civil service during the last spending review, in 2021. On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will unveil the Labour government's priorities for the next three years. But it's unclear whether it will provide all that much of an answer about what it's really about. Unlike the Autumn budget, when the chancellor announced her plans on where to tax and borrow to fund overall levels of spending, the spending review will set out exactly how that money is divided up between the different government departments. Since the start of the process in December those departments have been bidding for their share of the cash - setting out their proposed budgets in a negotiation which looks set to continue right up to the wire. This review is being conducted in an usual level of detail, with every single line of spending assessed, according to the chancellor, on whether it represents value for money and meets the government's priorities. Budget proposals have been scrutinised by so called "challenge panels" of independent experts. It's clear that health and defence will be winners in this process given pre-existing commitments to prioritise the NHS - with a boost of up to £30bn expected - and to increase defence spending. On Sunday morning, the government press release trumpeted an impressive-sounding "£86bn boost" to research and development (R&D), with the Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle sent out on the morning media round to celebrate as record levels of investment. We're told this increased spending on the life sciences, advanced manufacturing and defence will lead to jobs and growth across the country, with every £1 in investment set to lead to a £7 economic return. But the headline figure is misleading. . That £86bn has been calculated by adding together all R&D investment across government for the next three years, which will reach an annual figure of £22.5bn by 2029-30. The figure for this year was already set to be £20.4bn; so while it's a definite uplift, much of that money was already allocated. Read More: Peter Kyle also highlighted plans for "the most we've ever spent per pupil in our school system". I understand the schools budget is to be boosted by £4.5bn. Again, this is clearly an uplift - but over a three-year period, that equates to just £1.5bn a year (compared with an existing budget of £63.7bn). It also has to cover the cost of , and the promised uplift in teachers' pay. In any process of prioritisation there are losers as well as winners. We already know about planned cuts to the Department of Work and Pensions - but other unprotected departments like the Home Office and the Department of Communities and Local Government are braced for a real spending squeeze. We've heard dire warnings about austerity 2.0, and the impact that would have on the government's crime and policing priorities, its promises around housing and immigration, and on the budgets for cash-strapped local councils. The chancellor wants to make it clear to the markets she's sticking to her fiscal rules on balancing the books for day-to-day the decision to loosen the rules around borrowing to fund capital investment have given her greater room to manoeuvre in funding long-term infrastructure projects. That's why we've seen her travelling around the country this week to promote the £15.6bn she's spending on regional transport projects. The Treasury team clearly wants to focus on promoting the generosity of these kind of investments, and we'll hear more in the coming days. But there's a real risk the story of this spending review will be about the departments which have lost out - and the promises which could slip as a result.
