Virus outbreak deepens rift over return of Spix’s macaw to Brazil

The reintroduction of the Spix’s macaw in Brazil’s Caatinga shrubland faces a health crisis: seven birds have tested positive for circovirus, a highly contagious, potentially fatal disease with no known cure.
The outbreak threatens to undermine what was a successful attempt to reintroduce a species that’s still technically considered extinct in the wild.
Veterinarians and researchers report omissions and inadequate management by the conservation organizations involved in the project; captive and some already released birds show concerning signs of infection such as feather loss and beak deformities.
The organizations have defended themselves, saying the virus was already present in the region and that the government scientists raising the complaints are “willing to sacrifice the birds in the name of their interests.”

CURAÇÁ, Brazil — Under the scorching sun of Brazil’s semiarid Caatinga shrubland, squawks tear through the skies, signaling the arrival of one of the most threatened bird species in the world. Quickly, the unmistakable blue silhouettes fly overhead. It’s the Spix’s macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii), a species declared extinct in the wild in 2000 and now the focus of a reintroduction project. However, upon closer observation, from among the blur of turquoise-blue feathers, some white ones emerge.

On May 12 this year, BlueSky, the Brazilian organization responsible for the breeding center used for the reintroduction of Spix’s macaws in the city of Curaçá, in Brazil’s Bahia state, notified state and federal authorities that seven of the birds had tested positive for circovirus, including one chick born in the wild and six birds being prepared for release later this year.

Circovirus causes beak and feather disease, common among psittacines, the order of birds that includes macaws, parrots and parakeets. It’s a highly contagious, potentially lethal disease with no known treatment, capable of causing feather malformation and discoloration, beak deformities, and immunosuppression. Transmission can occur through contact with infected feathers or contaminated surfaces such as feeders, perches and nests.

The Caatinga shrub landscape in Curaçá, Bahia, site of the Spix’s macaw reintroduction project. Image by Miguel Monteiro.

Given the seriousness of the virus, and the fact that it had never been detected in wild birds in Brazil or South America (the virus is native to Australia), its occurrence in a threatened species like the Spix’s macaw is considered of utmost importance to be reported as soon as possible, especially due to the risk of contamination of other native Brazilian birds.

Among the institutions that BlueSky reported the outbreak to was the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), the environment ministry’s conservation agency. In a report published Sept. 14 this year, ICMBio noted that, in January 2025, one of the 41 Spix’s macaws that were to be sent from a breeding center in Germany to Brazil had tested positive for circovirus.

The Hanover-based Association for the Conservation of Threatened Parrots (ACTP) is a nonprofit that houses some of the rarest and most threatened parrots and macaws in the world. It currently holds about half the global population of Spix’s macaws. The ACTP and ICMBio previously had a technical cooperation agreement on reintroducing some of these captive-bred birds back into the wild in their native Brazil, but in 2024 ICMBio, terminated that deal. Since then, Curaçá-based BlueSky has stepped in for the ACTP in the partnership, becoming the party responsible for the Spix’s macaw breeding center in Curaçá.

The macaw that tested positive for circovirus in Germany underwent a second test eight days later, which came back negative. The ICMBio report highlights, however, that a single negative test after detection doesn’t rule out infection, since the virus is intermittent and false negatives are common.

In any case, the 41 Spix’s macaws that were in Germany, including the individual that had once tested positive for circovirus, were sent to Brazil in January this year. At no time were Brazilian authorities informed about the positive individual, nor were the biosafety recommendations for positive circovirus cases followed, according to the ICMBio report.

A Spix’s macaw chick with circovirus, exhibiting white discoloration of the feathers, in isolation at the Curaçá breeding center. Image by Miguel Monteiro.

Environmental emergency

After the confirmation and notification of circovirus-positive individuals at the Spix’s macaw breeding center in Curaçá, ICMBio’s wildlife disease unit, Coece, declared a state of emergency. Since then, ICMBio carried out visits to the breeding center in June and August to inspect the measures taken to contain the spread of the virus and to monitor the collection of samples from captive animals for testing. However, the team faced challenging situations at the facility.

“Dealing with BlueSky and ACTP during this process has not been an easy task, especially considering that our institutional competence is constantly questioned,” said Cláudia Sacramento, the Coece coordinator who led the emergency effort. “It’s always a very painful process, there’s always resistance to receiving us, always resistance to collaborating with the collections. Even to access the site, they tried to prevent us from entering more than once, so a visit to the breeding center is never peaceful.”

She added the process “was not transparent.”

“There was omission on their part regarding the animal that tested positive in Germany; they didn’t declare this information,” Sacramento said. “Later, once the Spix’s macaws with circovirus were identified at the breeding center, we sent official letters, emails and held discussions to implement biosafety measures. However, these measures were not followed, and the response was always that they [ACTP and BlueSky] did not agree with what we conveyed, claiming that circovirus poses no danger to Brazilian fauna and that it has existed in Brazil for over 30 years.”

Sacramento acknowledged that there have been cases of wild birds identified with circovirus, but in all these cases, she said, the infected individuals had been in contact with domesticated captive birds, whether at wildlife rehabilitation centers or breeding facilities, where the likelihood of infection is high. “They use a narrative built from selective scientific snippets, always omitting what truly matters,” she added.

It was in this hostile climate that ICMBio representatives returned to the Spix’s macaw breeding center in September, this time with the Federal Police in tow. The goal was to collect samples from the captive macaws alongside the breeding center’s team, supervise compliance with required biosafety measures, and take samples from other bird species in the surrounding area.

Researchers capture wild birds in the Caatinga of Curaçá to collect samples and test for circovirus. Image by Miguel Monteiro.

In total, they collected blood, fecal and feather samples from 92 Spix’s macaws, as well as two blue-winged macaws (Primolius maracana) kept in captivity, to test again for the occurrence of circovirus. The results had not yet been released as of the time this story was published. The researchers’ aim is to determine whether the virus has spread to the surrounding area, given its high contagion potential.

The team of biologists and veterinarians used mist nets to capture birds from the area, from which they then took feather, fecal and oral and cloacal swab samples. With the help of local community field assistants, the team also climbed trees near the breeding center to collect samples from blue-winged macaw nests, a parrot species that frequently comes into contact with Spix’s macaws. The assessment of the facilities, sanitary conditions, biosafety measures and bird welfare was conducted by veterinarians from partner institutions and Federal Police experts.

According to Evelyn Pimenta, a veterinarian at the University of Brasília’s veterinary hospital, who participated in the inspection of the breeding center with ICMBio, “upon entering the breeding center, the first impression was of a large physical structure, with potential to provide good conditions for the birds. However, during the initial inspections, signs of pronounced stress were observed in several individuals [of Spix’s macaw], including missing feathers and broken feathers.”

She added that, “Inconsistencies in biosafety protocols were also observed, especially considering the sanitary emergency context. The administration of controlled medications without individualization or dosage control represented a critical issue from a technical and ethical standpoint. Another relevant aspect was the execution of invasive procedures on birds without the presence or direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian, which constitutes a protocol failure and potential risk to animal welfare.”

When also observing the macaws living in the wild, Pimenta said “the free-ranging birds showed feathering alterations, with featherless areas on the head and body and, in one case, a beak alteration, with deviation and overgrowth of the lower beak. Although such findings are not specific to circovirus infection, they indicate that the situation deserves detailed investigation, reinforced by the sanitary emergency scenario.”

Local community field assistants climb trees with blue-winged macaw nests, another parrot species, to collect samples and assess circovirus contagion. Image by Miguel Monteiro.

The prelude to the emergency

Even before the establishment of the environmental emergency, a vet who once worked at the Spix’s macaw breeding center in Curaçá, but asked to remain anonymous, reported that he was already facing several difficulties.

“When the chick with discolored feathers that was born in the wild appeared, the ACTP team captured it and placed it in the release enclosure without knowing what was wrong with it. They didn’t communicate with the veterinary team about the handling of the birds, didn’t ask for our opinion,” the vet said. “I commented that the feather deficiency and discoloration were very consistent with circovirus or polyomavirus. However, the ACTP team told me it would never be that, that it was probably a nutritional issue. All my questions were dismissed, always redirected to nonpathological, noninfectious causes.”

According to the vet, “even with that chick showing symptoms, the ACTP team did not want to collect blood samples from all the birds, claiming it would cause stress. Instead, they collected pooled samples — that is, the 20 birds in the release enclosure were divided into four groups of five animals, and only one blood sample was taken per group. Only after one animal tested positive did they decide to test them all.”

Regarding other issues at the breeding center, “it happened that a bird was sick and being treated, but the veterinary team was not informed. All management and medication treatment was done by the ACTP team; we were not asked to perform a physical clinical exam of that bird to provide our assessment. I only performed the necropsy after it died,” the vet said.

“The veterinary team never had access to certain areas of the breeding center, such as the hatchery, where chicks are hand-fed. In the breeding area [where the reproductive birds are kept], I couldn’t even observe the birds from the outside [of the enclosure], much less from inside,” the vet said.

By contrast, on Jan. 28 this year, the ACTP’s Instagram account published a photo of German model Alena Gerber visiting the Curaçá breeding center and feeding a newborn Spix’s macaw chick.

“I felt we were not given the access we should have had; things were not communicated clearly. We were not being respected as professionals,” the vet said.

ICMBio and ACTP teams collect samples from captive Spix’s macaws at the breeding center. Image by Miguel Monteiro.

Contrasting narratives

Faced with ICMBio’s recommendations to handle the circovirus emergency among the Spix’s macaws, the ACTP has pushed back. In social media posts and a live YouTube broadcast, the ACTP team showed itself opposed to the proposal to capture wild Spix’s macaws to test whether they’re infected with circovirus, arguing this would represent the end of the project.

However, according to Luís Fábio Silveira, curator of birds at the University of São Paulo’s zoology museum, who has broad experience in psittacine reintroduction projects, “there’s no other way. You have to capture and test; this is for the project’s own safety. We have a sanitary emergency, there’s a real sanitary problem. So it’s imperative for the safety and peace of mind of the people working on the project that the animals be tested.”

Silveira, who has followed the Spix’s macaw conservation and reintroduction project since the early 1990s, said he’s in no doubt about the origin of circovirus in the region: “The Curaçá area has been known to researchers for decades and until now no case of circovirus had been reported. What is the single variable that arrived in a remote place like Curaçá, from 1990 until now? It was the arrival of the Spix’s macaws.

“Where are the blue-winged macaws with white feathers?” he added. “Where are the bare parakeets, featherless? There aren’t any. Simply none. There are no previous records of animals with clinical signs [of circovirus] in this region.”

A feather sample collected from a Spix’s macaw, showing the white discoloration symptomatic of circovirus infection. Image by Miguel Monteiro.

Silveira also questioned the ACTP’s insistence in its social media posts that capturing wild Spix’s macaws for testing would amount to a “second extinction” of the species. “The main criterion to consider that a reintroduced species is no longer extinct in the wild is that the population be self-sustaining, reproducing and living on its own,” he said.

Currently, there are just 11 free-living Spix’s macaws in Curaçá, including two chicks born in the wild. The birds depend on daily supplemental feeding, meaning its current status on the IUCN Red List of “extinct in the wild” still holds, Silveira said.

“This is an IUCN criterion, which determines species’ conservation status. On the IUCN site, it’s still technically extinct in the wild. And it will remain [considered] extinct [in the wild] for the next five or six years.” That, Silveira said, undermines any claim that “the species is established in the wild.”

Sacramento, the wildlife disease coordinator at ICMBio, agreed that “there’s this narrative that we are capturing the macaws to extinguish them in the wild,” which she said is baseless.

“Who most wants these macaws back in nature? Brazil, the Brazilian people — it is our asset, our patrimony,” she said. “However, it’s necessary to clarify that we need the macaws to return to nature healthy, without putting the species itself or other native species at risk.”

She added that, “given the long-term viability of the Spix’s macaw reintroduction project in the wild, it was expected that the breeding center would be collaborative, seeking joint solutions. Unfortunately, that’s far from what we have observed.”

In September, BlueSky petitioned the courts for an injunction to suspend the capture of the wild Spix’s macaws, going against ICMBio. On Oct. 8, a judge denied the request and upheld ICMBio’s orders to capture the macaws, test them for circovirus, and isolate any infected animals, which should occur soon.

A free-living Spix’s macaw near the breeding center in Curaçá, Brazil. Image by Miguel Monteiro.

What do ACTP and BlueSky say

In response to questions sent by Mongabay, Cromwell Purchase, scientific and field projects coordinator at the ACTP, denied that any Spix’s macaws had tested positive for circovirus in Germany. “ACTP has never diagnosed a case of beak and feather disease. Given that ACTP would not have risked dispatching an animal with a positive test result to Brazil, the laboratory was promptly contacted. They informed us that the bird exhibited a very weak positive result and thus recommended retesting. Both the retest of the initial sample and the test conducted on a subsequently collected sample returned negative results.”

Purchase also downplayed the idea that the macaws transferred from Germany were the source of the circovirus outbreak at the Curaçá center. “Another point of significance is the apparent lack of scientific engagement by ICMBio technicians in addressing the issue,” he said. “It remains implausible that these birds could have been the source of infection for the young wild Spix’s macaw, primarily due to insufficient time for transmission.”

On ICMBio’s complaints about difficulty accessing the Curaçá breeding center, Purchase said this was “due to ICMBio not willing to consider in house protocols for the birds and their welfare. ICMBio have no interest in what is best for the birds themselves, they are clinical office bound psychopaths with no heart or interest for what is best for the birds. They are willing to sacrifice the birds for their agendas with no remorse and no conscience. Access is restricted for the birds wellbeing, these are not pets, they are birds bred for conservation.”

And as for the former vet’s complaints about not being able to access the birds, Purchase said that “access [to the birds] can be limited for husbandry reasons if there are no signs of problems and there is breeding happening, or within 2 hours after feeding, or if the person has been in a different area in contact with birds, then wanting to go to another area.”

“We do not consider the capture of wild Spix’s macaws to be of significant importance,” Purchase added, on the need to capture the free-living Spix’s macaws for testing. “We assert that a comprehensive investigation of the circovirus situation in the region is crucial. This analysis may necessitate the inclusion of some free-ranging Spix’s macaws; however, it is even more imperative to capture and examine other free-ranging psittacine birds in the area. Alternatively, the virus may be a fabrication and not exist at all.”

Purchase suggested circovirus has long been present in wild bird populations in Brazil. “There exists a hesitance to acknowledge that if an extremely contagious virus has been circulating for three decades in Brazil — a nation where captive birds are housed outdoors and thus have direct interaction with wild birds — it is, at the very least, naive to assume that this virus has not already disseminated into the environment,” he said.

“It is well understood that the Brazilian government may be reluctant to concede that it has underestimated the issue and is now attempting to attribute blame to us, thereby deflecting responsibility for not having implemented the necessary measures in a timely manner,” Purchase added. “Given the absence of successful reintroduction efforts for Spix’s macaws over the past thirty years, there exists considerable envy towards those who have achieved this seemingly insurmountable task.”

BlueSky also denied that an infected macaw transferred from Germany had triggered the current outbreak. In response to questions sent by Mongabay, it wrote: “The import of the 41 birds from Germany received all the authorizations from the competent agencies. All stages of the import and quarantine process were also accompanied by these agencies. All the results of all tests were available to the authorities at all times during all stages. We are unaware that the delivery of test results was denied or that it was done incompletely to any authority that requested it.”

It added that, “It is extremely reckless to state that there was omission of information by those most interested in the import of these birds. All 41 Spix’s macaws that came from Germany were tested for all diseases and had negative results.”

Like the ACTP’s Purchase, BlueSky suggested a local origin for the circovirus outbreak.

“The chronology of the disease indicates that the virus has a different origin than the population in Germany, considering the positive and negative tests and the incubation period of the virus,” it said. “It is known that the virus occurs in Brazil for about 30 years, with records in breeding centers, open-air markets, animal rehabilitation centers, and in pet shops throughout Brazil. It is difficult to believe that since the 1990s no bird with circovirus, native or exotic, went into the natural environment and that the virus is restricted to captivity. In the regions adjacent to Curaçá, birds seized have been released and there is a wide illegal trade of wild birds.”

BlueSky also attributed the restricted access to the breeding center to the birds’ welfare, saying that “the breeding center never imposed resistance to the presence of environmental agencies or any other authority.”

“[F]or the welfare of the birds and management protocol, the flow of people in the enclosures is limited,” it said. “The access of authorities in the performance of their duties has always been permitted, with the breeding center’s team responsible for informing about the limitations, considering the welfare of the birds.”

Regarding complaints that it had failed to follow biosafety recommendations at the center, BlueSky said that “all practical biosecurity measures necessary to prevent the spread of the virus are duly adopted, with full separation of contaminated areas from non-contaminated areas. Some academic and theoretical recommendations do not apply to operational reality and make no difference from a biosecurity or health perspective. Some put the welfare of the birds at risk.”

BlueSky also pushed back on the need to capture all the free-living Spix’s macaws for testing.

“Nine of these 11 animals have survived free over the last three years, and two animals were born in the wild and have never been in a cage,” it said. “They are adapted to wildlife. Recapturing them for invasive sampling brings significant risks. However, it is important that the government make its decision based on consultation with those involved and who can provide relevant information.”

Image banner: A Spix’s macaw reintroduced in the Caatinga shrubland of Brazil’s Bahia state. Image by Miguel Monteiro.