By William Everitt, Allerton Project Research Student
After a full winter of monitoring bird feeding across the Allerton Project farm, we are now beginning to share our first insights. While not a formal trial, these early observations give a valuable snapshot of how birds respond to supplementary feeding in real farm conditions.
Why feed birds at all?
Our feeding efforts are timed to support birds through the “hungry gap” – the late winter to early spring period when natural food sources are at their lowest. Seeds from the previous year are largely depleted, while new plant growth and invertebrates have not yet become widely available. This creates a critical bottleneck for many farmland bird species, where access to supplementary food can make the difference for survival and breeding condition.
However, this comes alongside growing guidance from organisations such as the RSPB, who advise that garden bird feeding should be managed carefully – or even paused at certain times – to reduce the risk of disease transmission at feeders and ground feeding areas. While this advice is largely aimed at typical garden feeding contexts, the underlying principles around hygiene and responsible provision remain shared. Bringing birds together at feeding stations can increase the risk of pathogen spread, particularly where feeders are not regularly cleaned or food becomes contaminated. This presents an important trade-off: while supplementary feeding can support birds through food shortages, poorly managed feeding stations may do more harm than good.
Government guidance on supplementary feeding under CAB12 advises scattering a mixed seed little and often on firm, free draining ground such as tracks or bare areas near habitat, spreading it thinly rather than in piles and continuing through winter into early spring, while moving sites occasionally to keep sites clean. Likewise, bird feeders should be cleaned annually before they’re put out, moved occasionally, and any lids damaged by squirrel chewing should be replaced promptly to prevent seed from getting wet and spoiling.
Over the winter, we monitored how much seed was consumed at 12 feeders of different types placed across the Allerton Project farm, tracking activity from December through to March (figure 2). Green dots represent Perdix bucket feeders (Figure 1, a), orange represents Perdix automatic spinner feeders (1,b), while brown represents our new Perdix metal pest proof free standing feeder (1,c).
Seasonal patterns in feeding
While early results in December were limited (as feeders had only just been installed and birds were still adjusting), clear patterns emerged as winter progressed.
As expected, birds were much hungrier during the colder months, with feeder use increasing as winter progressed. Once birds had located and become familiar with reliable food sources, usage stabilised and increased into late winter, reinforcing the value of consistent feeding during the hungry gap.
Simple wins over sophisticated
One of the most striking findings was that the simple, traditional bucket feeder (a) consistently outperformed more complex options, suggesting that reliability and accessibility are key. The automatic spinner feeders (b) frequently blocked, making them an unreliable food source and leading to wasted feed, while the more expensive, pest-proof metal feeder (c) was almost entirely ignored – likely due to its low position. Most small farmland birds (e.g. tits, finches and sparrows) tend to prefer elevated feeding positions, where they are out of reach of ground-based predators such as cats, foxes and mustelids, and have a better vantage point to scan for danger. A wall-mounted version (d), combining squirrel-proofing with a more suitable height, would be an interesting option to trial.
That said, more open placements may support a different suite of species, including open-country birds such as skylark, yellowhammer, or corn bunting, which are less inclined to feed near cover. These species tend to favour ground feeding and rarely visit raised feeders, which may help explain the limited uptake observed at that location. Although feed was spread on the ground in some areas, it proved difficult to determine how much was actually consumed versus lost to spoilage, and so this was excluded from these observations. This is an area that could be explored further using approaches such as camera traps.
This strongly suggests that birds prefer feeders that are dependable and easy to access, rather than those designed with more complex mechanisms or restrictions. From a disease perspective, simpler feeders may also be easier to clean and maintain, which is an important consideration going forward.
Location matters
Feeder placement also played a major role in bird activity. Feeders located on the school farm side near the SSSI saw significantly higher usage compared to those placed near the Eye Brook side of the farm. A likely explanation is habitat structure:
- School farm has more trees and cover, offering birds protection from predators and harsh weather.
- The Eye Brook fields are more open, with fewer trees and less shelter, making them less attractive feeding sites.
Another likely factor is that because school farm lies closer to the adjacent SSSI, a large area of largely undisturbed woodland, it may act as a source of bird populations. This proximity could create a “spillover effect”, with birds regularly moving out from high-quality, protected habitat into surrounding farmland. Combined with better habitat connectivity on the school farm side, this likely increases the number of birds encountering and using feeders in this area.
Birds appear to prioritise safety, connectivity, and food availability together, especially during the winter months when energy conservation is critical.
Key takeaways
Although this was not a formal scientific trial, the repeated patterns in bird behaviour suggest meaningful trends – further research could help refine supplementary feeding approaches as a practical tool to support declining farmland bird species. Key lessons include:
- Keeping it simple: Birds favour basic, accessible feeders over complex designs.
- Ensuring reliability: Feeders that frequently block or fail quickly lose bird interest.
- Choosing locations carefully: Areas with trees, cover, and good connectivity attract far more activity.
- Thinking at the landscape scale: Proximity to high-quality habitats like SSSIs can significantly boost feeder use.
- Recognising habitat comes first: Supplementary feeding cannot replace the need for diverse, high-quality habitat across the farm, which remains fundamental to supporting bird populations year-round.
- Managing disease risk: Regular cleaning, lower-density feeding, and thoughtful placement are essential.
- Timing feeding appropriately: Supplementary feeding is most valuable during the hungry gap, but should be balanced with current guidance on bird health.
Overall, the results highlight that successful bird feeding isn’t about expensive equipment, but about providing a reliable, well-managed food source in the right place – especially where birds are already abundant and natural resources are at their lowest.