Table of Contents:
The relative attractiveness of various foods to wild birds at feeding stations was measured at locations in California, Ohio, Maine and Maryland. Tests were also carried out near Kansas City, Missouri and in Maryland to better understand how the feeder influences the species of birds attracted to food. The various bird species differed greatly in feeding preferences and these preferences were similar at all test locations. Many commonly used bird foods such as wheat, cracked corn and milo were relatively unattractive to most wild birds. Also, oil-type sunflower was more attractive than other types of sunflower seed. The manner of presenting food as well as the kind of food influences the species attracted to a feeder. For example, chickadees readily use elevated feeders with small perches. In contrast, juncos prefer the ground or large platforms.
The efficiency with which a specific species can be fed in terms of bird visits per unit cost can be greatly increased over that resulting from the use of commercial mixes by presenting attractive food in the manner most effective for the desired species.
This report describes the relative attractiveness of various seeds that were offered to wild birds at four different locations across the United States. An earlier study (Geis, 1980) in Maryland reported that many commonly used bird foods such as wheat, cracked corn, and milo were relatively unattractive to most wild birds, while oil-type sunflower was much superior to the other varieties. The Maryland study also documented striking differences among bird species in their feeding preferences, suggesting that feeding can be more selective and economical by presenting specific foods rather than generalized mixtures. In 1980 over 60 million Americans fed birds, spending over a half-billion dollars for food (Anonymous, 1982). The implications of the Maryland study prompted an extension of this research over a broader geographic area to determine if the same relationships existed. Study areas were established in a residential section of Arcadia, California; at the Allwood Audubon Center and Farm near Dayton, Ohio; and along the coast of central Maine near Bar Harbor. Studies also were continued at the original location near Clarksville, Maryland. A concise, popular account of the results of this study has been published (Geis and Hyde, 1983).
The relative attractiveness of commercially available seeds was measured by presenting four different seeds simultaneously on experimental feeding tables (122 x 122 cm) divided into four equal 61 x 61 centimeter compartments (as shown in Fig. 1 of Geis 1980). A wooden barrier 37 mm high rimmed the outside edge of the table and a 15.2 cm high plexiglass partition separated the compartments. A "lantern" type feeder (Rubbermaid Model #3405)1 was placed in the center of each compartment. Specific foods quickly became scattered from the feeders, resulting in each being available throughout the separate compartments. Bird visits to each compartment were recorded during 30 second intervals distributed throughout the day. Typically counts were made during 72 intervals distributed during 15 different five minute periods during the daylight hours. Only birds attracted to the compartment to feed were recorded. Observations were made throughout the year since earlier work (Geis, 1980) showed no striking seasonal differences in the relative attractiveness of foods. After 720 observation intervals usually distributed over five or more days the positions of the food on the table were changed so that all foods were presented in all positions. This greatly reduced the possibility of a location bias influencing the results. When the positions were changed, all spilled food was removed from each compartment and sorted and cleaned by using screens and blowers. The amount of uneaten seed was subtracted from the total amount placed in the feeder during the experiment to measure the food actually taken by the birds. In some instances, data on food consumption could not be recorded because spillage had spoiled or was eaten by mammals. Small mammals usually were discouraged from eating the food due either to difficulty in climbing metal legs or an inability to climb into the feeding table because the legs were attached some distance from the edge.
Counts were conducted from February 1980 to August 1981 in California; January 1980 to August 1981 in Maine; February 1980 to August 1981 in Ohio, and January 1980 to March 1982 in Maryland. A total of 710,450 observations were made of birds choosing from among various types of seed.
Large experimental feeding tables were used because they attracted a wide variety of species, and they made it possible to more precisely measure the amount of food consumed. Because the presentation method influences the degree to which various species visit a feeder, tests were conducted near Kansas City, Missouri and Clarksville, Maryland of three different feeders and food on the ground. Gray striped, oil-type, black striped and hulled sunflower were presented both in experimental feeder feeding tables, at tubular feeders (Droll Yankees, Model B7), and a small, hopper type feeder (Rubbermaid, Model #3405). The latter two feeders were mounted on poles at the same height as the table. In these tests the food was simply placed in the compartments of the experimental table with no feeder involved.
Black striped sunflower (BSS) and white proso millet (WPM) provided the standards against which other foods were compared quantitatively. BSS and WPM were selected as standards because they are both in common use and virtually all bird species visiting feeders found one, or the other, or both, relatively attractive. Except for a few sunflower seed tests both standards were presented with two other kinds of seed in every experiment. The relative attractiveness of a certain food was determined by dividing the number of visits to the food by the number of visits to the standard. Thus, relative attractiveness values of more than 1.0 indicate the candidate food was more attractiveness than the standard, while those less than 1.0 reflect the extent to which it was less attractiveness. For example, a relative attractiveness index of 0.5 means that the candidate was one-half as attractive as the standard. In Table 1 the relative index of 0.01 for canary seed in Ohio, Maryland and Maine indicates that this food received only 1% as many visits by blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata) in those areas as did BSS. In contrast, peanut kernels experienced from 50 to 87% more visits.
The major reason for collecting data from four widely separated areas was to determine if there were regional differences in bird feeding preferences. Results from each area were similar indicating that bird feeding preferences were the same nationwide. Table 1 shows the relative attractiveness of various foods to the blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) using BSS as the standard. Peanut kernels were the food preferred by blue jays in all three areas while gray striped sunflower was consistently more attractive than the conventional BSS. Note also the remarkably consistent indication that the smaller oil-type sunflower was about one-fourth as attractive to blue jays as the larger BSS. Buckwheat, canary seed, flax, all the millets, oats, rice, safflower, sorghum, thistle and wheat were of low attractiveness in all geographic areas, while fine cracked corn, peanut hearts and oil-type sunflower were consistently moderately attractive. Chickadees (Table 2) also demonstrated consistent patterns of feeding preferences between areas. In this table, data from black-capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus) and Carolina chickadees (Parus carolinensis) are combined. Observations in Ohio and Maine no doubt were of black-capped chickadees, while those in Maryland were Carolina chickadees. In all areas, oil-type sunflower was more attractive to chickadees than BSS seed. Peanut kernels were of moderate attractiveness, while all other foods except sunflower seeds were consistently unattractive. Table 3 compares the feeding preferences of cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis) in Ohio with those in Maryland, the only locations where this species was present. WPM was consistently about 20% as attractive as BSS. Results from both also indicated that oil-type sunflower was about as attractive as BSS. The same general pattern of attractiveness for different seeds was demonstrated in both Ohio and Maryland.
The house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) was the only species that was not consistent in its preferences (Table 4). For this species, data available from California and Maryland consistently indicated that California house finches were less discriminating than were those in Maryland. For example, WPM was about half as attractive as BSS in California, while it was only 6% as attractive in Maryland. Rape seed in California was 28% as attractive, while in Maryland it was only 8%. California house finches also feed more readily on canary seed, peanut hearts, 4milo and flax. Because house finches only recently expanded their range into Maryland, it is conceivable that in time they may develop more diverse feeding habits.
The relative consistency of feeding pr,s may also be demonstrated by comparing the performance of oil-type sunflower with that of BSS for the same species of birds in different parts of the country (Table 5). If a species prefers oil-type sunflower over BSS this tendency occurs nation-wide. For example, mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) consistently prefer oil-type sunflower to BSS. Conversely, blue jays prefer the larger BSS to oil-type sunflower at all locations. Incidentally, although it is not shown in Table 5, scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) in California also preferred the larger seed.
Chi-Square tests of homogeneity were conducted of the data in Tables 1-5 for all foods (species in Table 5) having a relative attractiveness of more than 0.1 in at least one area. These tests reflect the likelihood of chance being responsible for the differences observed. It was found that in a number of instances highly significant differences occurred in situations where differences were too small to influence decisions concerning food preferences. For example; in Table 1 both cracked corn and WPM had statistically highly significant (P<.01) differences among areas, yet with the relative attractiveness of the seed ranging from .11 to .33 for cracked corn and .04 to .15 for WPM. Thus there was no logical reason to question the conclusion that the attractiveness of these foods was too low in all areas to use them to attract blue jays. A more potentially meaningful difference was noted in Table 2 in regard to the attractiveness of oil-type sunflower to chickadees. In Maryland the relative attractiveness of this food was substantially higher (4.61) than in Maine (2.17) of Ohio (1.24). However, despite this difference, there was no reason to reject the conclusion that oil-type sunflower is better than conventional black stripe as a chickadee food. Except for house finches' tendency to be less specific in their preferred foods in California than in Maryland, the bird species studied all showed the same preference patterns in all of the widely distributed areas. Thus, in general, summaries of feeding preferences obtained by combining data from all study areas should indicate feeding preferences throughout the United States.
The relative attractiveness of various foods to common bird species is summarized in Table 6 and 7, which pool the data from all four areas. Table 6 presents results when regular BSS was used as the standard, while in Table 7, WPM was the standard. Note that each table lists first those bird species that found the standard upon which the table was based more attractive than the other standard, since better information on the ratings of various foods is obtained by focusing attention on the results obtained when the most attractive standard was used. For example, it is better to use BSS to judge the attractiveness of foods to blue jays since that species found WPM to be only 9% as attractive as BSS. In contrast, WPM is the best standard for the mourning dove since doves preferred the millet more than twice as much as regular BSS. The rating of foods compared with the less attractive standard also is shown in Tables 6 and 7 because some species readily ate both standards, and even if they didn't, the results confirm the findings from the more attractive standard. The likelihood that chance variation would cause a misleading conclusion is very remote in view of the large sample sizes involved. Except for foods that were rarely eaten (therefore it doesn't make any difference) the confidence interval around all relative attractiveness index values can easily be determined by regarding the ratio of visits to the candidate food to total visits (visits to the candidate plus the standard) as a binomial distribution. This is a reasonable assumption since the bird had the choice of either visiting the candidate food or the standard, and the relative attractiveness index value is based on the ratio of visits to one to visits to the other. Summaries of the various foods' attractiveness follows:
The most attractive foods for a variety of bird species are summarized in Table 9. Foods are listed in order of attractiveness. You will note there are more species entered here than are found in Tables 6 and 7. This is because it is easier to identify preferred foods than it is to also categorize the extent to which other foods are unattractive. Note that starlings find only peanut hearts and hulled oats relatively attractive.
The data presented up to this point have been based on observations of large experimental feeding tables. Because of obvious differences in feeding habits, it could be expected that birds would be influenced by not only the food presented, but by the type of feeder used. This is demonstrated in Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13, which show the species composition of birds attracted to the same sunflower products presented in four different feeding situations in Missouri and three different feeders in Maryland. In each instance, the same food is presented in each feeder. Note, for example, the consistent tendency of house sparrows and cardinals to use the table more than the other feeders. Perhaps the most striking difference is demonstrated by the dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) which utilized the food on the ground, but rarely appeared on any of the elevated feeders. This tendency to avoid small, elevated feeders was demonstrated in Maryland, where juncos tended to use the table more than the smaller feeders. Chickadees consistently utilized the small, elevated feeders more than the tables or the ground. Despite differences in the types of feeders favored by the various species the overall influence of type of food was still evident. Note, for example, the consistently higher percentage of American goldfinches appearing at hulled sunflower seeds than was the case for other foods. Thus, the kind of birds visiting a feeding situation is influenced both by the kind of food used, and also by the type of feeder in which it is presented.
Decisions concerning the best foods to use depend upon the attractiveness of the foods to the desired bird species in relation to cost. An important benefit of the inclusion of relatively unattractive ingredients in many commercial wild bird food mixes is that they greatly reduce the cost of feeding. Not only is the initial cost low, the overall cost is as well because the food is taken at a low rate. The relative costs of different foods were presented in Geis (1980) Special Scientific Report #233 and have generally remained unchanged.
Because of their general attractiveness, oil-type sunflower seed and WPM should play a prominent part in most feeding programs. Although BSS, which has traditionally been used, is an excellent bird food, the oil-type sunflower seed is more attractive to most species and is no more expensive. People wanting to maximize bird feeding activity should avoid the use of commercial mixes which typically contain generally unattractive foods such as wheat, milo, peanut hearts, hulled oats and rice. However, because the species composition of the birds present varies from time to time and also from place to place, it is impossible to recommend what would constitute the appropriate ratio of even attractive ingredients. Therefore, it is not possible to formulate an entirely satisfactory seed mixture. The present study suggests that the best over-all results can be obtained by purchasing oil-type sunflower seed and WPM and offering them separately. This technique also facilitates recognition of the differences in feeding behavior among the various species. Specifically, those species that prefer WPM tend to use the ground or large platform feeders, while many species taking oil-type sunflower seed readily use elevated feeders with small perching areas such as tubular feeders. The present research establishes that the results of earlier studies applies throughout the United States and that the efficiency with which wild birds are fed could be improved by recognizing the great differences among bird species in the specific foods they find attractive and the manner in which they prefer to eat. This information on feeding preferences and behavior can be used to present foods known to be attractive in the amounts and ways that are most efficient for the desired bird species present.
The relative attractiveness of various foods to wild birds at feeding stations was measured in five locations throughout the United States to better understand how the kind of food and type of feeder influences the number and species of birds attracted. These tests indicated that various species differed greatly in feeding preferences and these preferences were similar at all test locations. Some commonly used food such as cracked corn, milo and wheat were relatively unattractive to most wild birds, while oil-type sunflower and white proso millet were generally attractive. The manner of presenting food as well as the kind of food influenced the species attracted to feeders. Key words: Bird food, sunflower, white proso millet, artificial bird feeders, and bird food attractiveness.
This study could not have been carried out without the excellent cooperation of the people who actually made the bird counts in a careful, highly controlled manner. In California, counts were made by Mrs. Merle Froke, in Ohio by Mrs. Diana Ullery, and in Maine by Mrs. Maude Russell. In Missouri, Mr. Harold Burgess made the counts at the Martha LaFeet Thompson Nature Sanctuary. By far the largest volume of data was collected near Clarksville by Mrs. Leitha Geis, who contributed to all aspects of this study. Administrative arrangements for studies in California, Ohio and Maine were made through a contact with the Urban Wildlife Research Center.