Can QDM make hunting harder?

Call me ignorant, but what are the negatives of supplemental feed in the real world? Ohio has allowed it for as long as I've been in the woods and we haven't had any noticeable problem in with our herd. I know in studies and some instances it can lead to weird things in a herd, but those are literally less than 1% of the situations.

I'd say you're probably more likely to fall out of your treestand, statistically, than to have a disease outbreak from supplemental feeding

I thought the same thing until CWD hit my area. We concentrate on harvesting does and if a good buck comes along then great. The last thing you want is the DNR bringing in professional sharpshooters for an "If its brown its down hunt on your property" with nothing you can do about it.
 
Call me ignorant, but what are the negatives of supplemental feed in the real world? Ohio has allowed it for as long as I've been in the woods and we haven't had any noticeable problem in with our herd. I know in studies and some instances it can lead to weird things in a herd, but those are literally less than 1% of the situations.

I'd say you're probably more likely to fall out of your treestand, statistically, than to have a disease outbreak from supplemental feeding

I think we live in a world where many perceive any risk to be too high, but life is filled with it. Crying, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" generates a lot of headlines, political "action" and the resources to combat the falling sky. Only thing is, in the end, we have no way to keep the sky from falling....if it is. At least the politicians and bureaucrats (fair disclosure, I am one), can say, "look, we did everything we could." Now, i'm sure in one isolated place the sky did fall. But, what are ya' gonna do?
 
I thought the same thing until CWD hit my area. We concentrate on harvesting does and if a good buck comes along then great. The last thing you want is the DNR bringing in professional sharpshooters for an "If its brown its down hunt on your property" with nothing you can do about it.

I really enjoy your well thought out contributions, and ask this out of respect for your candor and views. First, I'm sorry to hear about CWD in your area.
My question is, do you believe supplemental feeding of free range deer has had a direct impact on the spread CWD? To put it another ways, has objective study clearly and correctly vilified supplemental feeding?

And, I get it. Why impose another factor that might be a contributing factor to the spread of the disease, but I'm weary of the need to worry about every risk facing us, be it falling out of an airplane without a parachute, or spreading CWD.
 
I think we live in a world where many perceive any risk to be too high, but life is filled with it. Crying, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" generates a lot of headlines, political "action" and the resources to combat the falling sky. Only thing is, in the end, we have no way to keep the sky from falling....if it is. At least the politicians and bureaucrats (fair disclosure, I am one), can say, "look, we did everything we could." Now, i'm sure in one isolated place the sky did fall. But, what are ya' gonna do?

I agree. And admittedly, I've never been snakebitten by it. If I had, I'll admit, I'd probably look at things differently. But I also know guys who are convinced ozone will kill you. I know people who won't eat lake erie fish because some had mercury in them, but fail to do the math and see that you'd have to eat fish 3 meals a day for 15 years to get any negative results.

Heck, there are people who thing guns are evil and kill people.

I guess I haven't seen the "sky is falling" moment yet, so its tough for me to really get into how terrible it is, morally or managment wise
 
Supplemental feeding of quail in the south has long proven to be successful in improving quail health, increasing body weights, increasing clutch size, and decreasing predation. BUT, supplemental feed is supplied to quail by spreading feed and not a single point supply, which one would think would reduce the chance for disease transmission.

The frequency and duration with which deer utilize summer plantings of beans and clover makes one question just how much of their diet is derived from native vegegation when they are spending hours everyday in a bean or clover field. Are they eating it in so much quantity because it is just so easy, because it just tastes so good, because they need the protien, none of these reasons - but probably all of these reasons. I can put out corn in these bean and clover food plots - and often times, the deer wont hardly touch it. I am considering supplemental feeding high protien pellets - only during the spring and summer - as a hedge against failed crops of clover and beans - at a time when science tells us deer have an increased demand for protien. My concern in mostly for the health of does and fawns at this time. I am trying to improve my fawn recruitment numbers - and it is fair to believe healthier does and fawns will be more likely to prosper. Any added benefits to antler growth is also a plus. I do see feeding supplemental feed from a feeder potentially increase disease prevalence - but would probably not be too concerned about that unless cwd makes it to our area.
 
I really enjoy your well thought out contributions, and ask this out of respect for your candor and views. First, I'm sorry to hear about CWD in your area.
My question is, do you believe supplemental feeding of free range deer has had a direct impact on the spread CWD? To put it another ways, has objective study clearly and correctly vilified supplemental feeding?

And, I get it. Why impose another factor that might be a contributing factor to the spread of the disease, but I'm weary of the need to worry about every risk facing us, be it falling out of an airplane without a parachute, or spreading CWD.


For one thing it's not what caused CWD to show up. As far as me believing it has had an impact in spreading CWD, I'm not sure anyone could actually ever prove that. However, I strongly do believe that once CWD has taken hold, feed piles or troughs absolutely would cause the spread of it. (less so with spinning type feeders IF moved frequently) To what degree who knows. I think deer are no different than humans. Some would absolutely contract it and others never would no mater how much contact they had with an infected host.

In the past I have had trail cameras out over the summer. As the season approached I would bait the camera with corn piles to try to get a halfway decent inventory of the bucks that reside in certain areas of the farm. My camera would go from having a few pictures a day to a hundred a day. It just concentrates them way to much. I think the risks far out weigh the rewards for something that is completely unnecessary especially with the quality food sources the deer have, at least across the Midwest.

I still stand behind my thinking that If you have to "feed" the deer then there are more deer than what the landscape can support and there should be a die off to return it back to a sustainable population. (which may very well be what CWD will do for us if we just get out of the way and allow it two)
 
Oh goodness! There's such a lot of good information....and speculation in this thread. And, there's a lot of assertion (false facts) that won't hold up upon close inspection. My problem is, I cannot tell the difference!

Back in the early 1980's Jimmy Carter was running for president. I remember one political cartoon. It had three frames. One had Jimmy Carter. One had George Washington. One had Richard Nixon. The bubble text connected from each one:

George Washington: I cannot tell a lie!
Richard Nixon: I cannot tell the truth!
Jimmy Carter: I cannot tell the difference!

Soils.
There have been many comments about quality soils and growing bruiser bucks. If I've read correctly "we" believe there is a cause and effect action here, that good soils cause big bucks. Maybe that's a little too simple, but i believe it frames my question. Ummm, correlation does not prove causation. But, i have an open mind an am seeking enlightenment of this issue - about how good soils cause big bucks.

Happy Friday and a here's hope for a heart racing weekend of chase! I thinks its a washout here in central Virginia!

Lol, this has become my favorite thread of all time on this site! I understand that a lot of it is "I know what I know" type of thing... with me included! It's a great read though and throws out a lot of ideas (speculation) that are worth mulling over.
I'm probably the biggest promoter of dealing with soil on this thread. My point of view in the simplest form: Deer spend around 10% of their time (at most) eating plots, that means they spend 90% of their time eating other stuff. Plants are the only nutritional/mineral delivery system deer have. If it's not in the soil for plants to uptake, then it's not in the plants for deer to uptake. Soooo, I focus on the base of the nutritional pyramid and focus on the largest percentage of what's eaten.
I also think I'm the one who keeps bringing cattle into this for comparisons. I know feeding steers cubes is a great way to get gains. I know that mineral helps facilitate gains and can prevent health issues. I also know that these same cattle have the exact same plant offerings as the deer on our place (except for the damn fence jumpers that hit the bean fields every night). And I know that a cow isn't a deer!
I've got no proof, I have no statistics, but "I know what I know". :) (All this, and I haven't even brought up the "Salt Marsh" near me and the studies done there).
 
Lol, this has become my favorite thread of all time on this site! I understand that a lot of it is "I know what I know" type of thing... with me included! It's a great read though and throws out a lot of ideas (speculation) that are worth mulling over.
I'm probably the biggest promoter of dealing with soil on this thread. My point of view in the simplest form: Deer spend around 10% of their time (at most) eating plots, that means they spend 90% of their time eating other stuff. Plants are the only nutritional/mineral delivery system deer have. If it's not in the soil for plants to uptake, then it's not in the plants for deer to uptake. Soooo, I focus on the base of the nutritional pyramid and focus on the largest percentage of what's eaten.
I also think I'm the one who keeps bringing cattle into this for comparisons. I know feeding steers cubes is a great way to get gains. I know that mineral helps facilitate gains and can prevent health issues. I also know that these same cattle have the exact same plant offerings as the deer on our place (except for the damn fence jumpers that hit the bean fields every night). And I know that a cow isn't a deer!
I've got no proof, I have no statistics, but "I know what I know". :) (All this, and I haven't even brought up the "Salt Marsh" near me and the studies done there).

Deer may spend 10% of their time feeding in food plots - but I am not sure they spend the other 90% of their day feeding on native vegetation. I would think they sleep some, chew their cud, travel around, and maybe just rest. I dont know how much food a deer consumes in a day. Maybe an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening of solid feeding in a lush bean field supplies them with 90% of their daily requirements and the rest of the day is just spent loafing, sleeping, traveling and snacking on some native vegetation - but I dont know for sure.

And conversely to the thought process if you have to feed your deer, you have too many deer. Maybe you feed your deer because you dont have enough deer and you are attempting to improve fawn recruitment by supplying a readily available source of high quality food at a time when both fawns and does need it. I live in an area where spring flooding is fairly common - relocating deer from their native range, bunching them up - all the while, the floods destroying all vegetation up to ten feet. And then butally hot, dry summers where all the herbaceous vegetation dries up in the heat. Yes, maybe we could shoot our deer down to ten dpsm and they would make it fine during these intermittent periods of adversity. But, as deer hunting folks who like to see deer, we would rather maintain a population that the environment can capably support 90% of the time, and help them through intermittent periods of adversity providing them an additional food source ten percent of the time.
 
My point of view in the simplest form: Deer spend around 10% of their time (at most) eating plots, that means they spend 90% of their time eating other stuff. .
I'm assuming you meant to say 10% of the time they spend eating, it spent eating plots. They surely don't eat 100% of the time.
I'm with others thinking this isn't accurate either. When a deer spends an hour or four devouring soybeans straight, I don't think they eat very much on the way back to bed (sure a nibble here or there but from a quantity standpoint, I'd think it's almost nothing).
 
You guys need to look below ground for the answer. Genetics affecting the herd quality has been debunked already. The MSU deer lab did a multi-year study where they swapped trophy deer from their high productivity ag country with small deer from their low quality forested areas. They flip flopped environments with the genetics. After 4 years, there was no difference in deer size. The finding was that the size difference was driven by nutrition. I bet if you overlayed the national corn and soybean yield maps with with the B&C entries by county, you'd see a near perfect correlation between crop yields and book entries.

Up where I hunt, the native soil is 5.5 pH. The winters are longer, summers shorter, and native food is scarce unless introduced by man or disturbance. Take a look at what happens to nutrient availability when soil pH's are off, and you'll find out why you've got smaller bodies and poor antlers. It's the antler minerals that are essentially unavailable to deer at low soil pH's. Then throw in a situation where minerals are out of balance and tied up, even if pH is more properly balanced.

This is why every time I do some cutting to create new browse and cover, I'll go in and put down the right lime to balance Ca/Mg ratios and include some gypsum to get sulfur out there. Most of what deer need is out there in many places already, except for some of the leachables like boron and sulfur. Those nutrients just need to be balanced and unlocked. The root acids and diversity will do the rest. You just keep cutting and spreading lime and gypsum.

soils.PNG
 
Well, there are a couple of potential negative outcomes depending on the method. One is disease. This increases when point source feeding is done. You find less potential for increased disease spread when the supplemental food is distributed. Another aspect is sustainability. When we artificially increase the BCC through things like food plots, if/when we stop, the change is somewhat slow. The fields that produced crops begin producing forbs and early successional habitat. Slowly over time the deer herd adapts to the changes as it does to other changes in the habitat. When we use supplemental feed, deer herds can become dependent and if we stop, deer populations can crash.

I know you are way passed this point in understanding deer and I'm sure you've weighted these considerations and none of us generally plan to build deer up and cut them off. I through out these cautions for the many readers who are more casual participants in deer management. This can be the very outcome we are trying to avoid with QDM. For example, in my area yearling buck weights are directly tied to the acorn crops the previous fall. A nearby military base where I volunteer does mast crop estimates each year and plots them against yearling buck weights. The correlation is amazing. So, when I'm looking to plant for fall/winter here, I'm looking to protect against mast crop failure years. Sure, deer use our plots even during heavy mast crops, but mostly at night and way less than in poor mast crop years when they hammer the plots and risk being shot by hunters during daylight.

You know much more and have much more experience with supplemental feeding. I know it is something I want to avoid because there are better ways to achieve the results in my climate. The whether to feed and how to feed are decisions where you want professionals involved to evaluate your specific situation and I know you've done that. There are hotspots of EHD here where baiting (illegal but still done) is heavy. Baiting is not necessarily done like supplemental feeding and not with the same intent, but when point source food is involved, risks can be similar.

Having said that, every habitat decision we make has both risks and rewards as well. In all cases, it is a matter of understanding them and making the best decision we can. Folks of good conscience can weigh risks and rewards differently and every region has it's unique factors.

Thanks,

Jack

Jack et al, To start I am glad you changed from " pretty dramatic negative outcomes" to "potential negative outcomes". Directionally correct. You point to three things: 1) potential for diseases from point source feeding 2) Artificial increase in carrying capacity and 3) EHD concerns at feed points.

Lets take a look at each:
1) To my knowledge there has never been a correlation found between supplementally feeding protein and disease. There is real danger in over feeding corn giving deer unlimited access particularly at the beginning of the season. This toxicity has killed a lot of deer. However I have never heard of protein supplementation or the methodology harming a deer. Appreciate that there are thousands [ maybe tens of thousands? ] of people feeding supplemental protein . While it may not be that common in the north? it is very common in the south. Simply look at all the manufacturers of protein starting with Purina and the scale can be better understood . Taking it a step forward there is a wealth of data showing significant improvements in all metrics of health for deer fed supplemental protein. This outcome holds true irrespective of habitat.

Continuing with the benefits, supplementation can take the peaks and valleys out of the nutritional plane common in most habitats. Rare is the location that can meet all the nutritional needs of deer 365 days a year year in and year out. A high quality pellet also supplements vitamins and minerals that may be lacking in even the best forages. Take a quick look at how the nutritional content of human food has declined over the past few decades and it is an easy segue to believe that could be true for wildlife as well. I see significant improvement in fawn survival and recruitment success.

Supplementation also adds variety. On my farm I have quality year round ag specifically for deer. Yet it is a daily occurrence to see deer hitting the feeders. Why? Conventional wisdom says deer [ most animals ] know whats good for them and will seek out the nutrition needed.

2) Whether a herd is above ,below, or at carrying capacity has no relationship to supplemental feed. That is a management choice or lack there of. Practice QDM irrespective of the choice to feed.

3) EHD and feeding or baiting have no correlation whatsoever. EHD is transmitted by a midge to deer. If you meant to say CWD I still contend there is no relationship .The fact is that supplemental feeding improves deer health and ' could ? ' help deer recover from EHD better. What I know is that in La. EHD is common but not always fatal because deer have developed immunities. I never see signs of EHD on my farm.

Lastly while this may not be important to many I believe anecdotally that protein supplementation done properly adds 10-15% in antler growth . The key is ...done properly. This means having enough feeders to reach a majority if not all of the resident deer , feeders kept full especially Jan - August and all stress periods, and a high quality pellet designed for deer is used. I can continue with benefits but thats enough for now.

Now, having said all that I think protein supplementation is the last thing most should consider. Using the analogy of plugging hole in the bucket this is the last step that should be considered. Protein supplementation is an expensive long term program.

Most failures result from unrealistic expectations. EX:
Putting a feeder out on the 100 acres or less and believing that will produce a booner. Possible but unlikely.
Starting a feeding program but still shooting [ or having neighbors shoot ] immature deer. Supplementation has no value if you aren't getting deer into mature age classes.
Putting a feeder out and feeding horse and mule feed or whatever is cheap at the coop.--Wont work
Putting a few feeder out and wondering why you never see quality bucks when what is happening is the neighbors are shooting them.
Starting a feed program and after one year with no results quitting-- Facts are it takes about 3 yrs. to begin seeing any benefit.
And the list goes on.....

What does it take or a supplementation program to work?
First, as Jack pointed out...scale! You need to be in a position to effectively manage enough deer assuring bucks are getting into the older age classes. This requires scale or a game fence....plus discipline.
Second the feeder density has to be adequate to reach a significant percentage of the herd. Consider a feeder to 100 acres optimum with 1-250 acres minimum for measurable benefits.
A quality feed must be fed. Minimum 16% protein though 18-20% commonly fed. The feed should include a great vitamin/mineral pac .
Patience. It may take a while for the deer to adapt and as stated above it generally takes about 3 yrs before results become visible. But then the benefits start accelerating exponentially.

It is my personal opinion that supplementally feeding deer would work every where and it is my experience that it works very well everywhere I have employed it including radically different habitats. However in areas of adequate rainfall there are many other opportunities that are very effective.

Enough from me for now.
 
You guys need to look below ground for the answer. Genetics affecting the herd quality has been debunked already. The MSU deer lab did a multi-year study where they swapped trophy deer from their high productivity ag country with small deer from their low quality forested areas. They flip flopped environments with the genetics. After 4 years, there was no difference in deer size. The finding was that the size difference was driven by nutrition. I bet if you overlayed the national corn and soybean yield maps with with the B&C entries by county, you'd see a near perfect correlation between crop yields and book entries.

Up where I hunt, the native soil is 5.5 pH. The winters are longer, summers shorter, and native food is scarce unless introduced by man or disturbance. Take a look at what happens to nutrient availability when soil pH's are off, and you'll find out why you've got smaller bodies and poor antlers. It's the antler minerals that are essentially unavailable to deer at low soil pH's. Then throw in a situation where minerals are out of balance and tied up, even if pH is more properly balanced.

This is why every time I do some cutting to create new browse and cover, I'll go in and put down the right lime to balance Ca/Mg ratios and include some gypsum to get sulfur out there. Most of what deer need is out there in many places already, except for some of the leachables like boron and sulfur. Those nutrients just need to be balanced and unlocked. The root acids and diversity will do the rest. You just keep cutting and spreading lime and gypsum.

View attachment 21193
SD- We are pretty much exactly in line with each other in philosophy, I may just not express it well.
 
Thanks Jack for clarifying. Deer should be fat and happy going into winter this year for sure! The base I hunt has a 3pt on one side plus 15" inside rule or 4.5 years old and the lease I'm on has very similar rules so I just don't see many yearling bucks killed. Dog hunters are about the only ones I see that from.

Which base are you hunting?
 
You guys are correct in that I oversimplified it stating that 100% of a deer's waking moments are spent eating. I get to watch deer away from plots often. With the exception of during the rut they are browsing most of the time they are on their feet. With that said, I really have no clue how much time a day they are bedded. This would make a significant difference in percentages. If they are only bedded 2 hrs a day, spend 2 hrs in a bean field, that leaves 20 hrs loafing and browsing. If they are bedded 10 hrs a day, spend 2 hrs in a bean field, then they are only browsing 8 hrs a day. I truly don't know those answers and percentages.
 
Jack et al, To start I am glad you changed from " pretty dramatic negative outcomes" to "potential negative outcomes". Directionally correct. You point to three things: 1) potential for diseases from point source feeding 2) Artificial increase in carrying capacity and 3) EHD concerns at feed points.

Lets take a look at each:
1) To my knowledge there has never been a correlation found between supplementally feeding protein and disease. There is real danger in over feeding corn giving deer unlimited access particularly at the beginning of the season. This toxicity has killed a lot of deer. However I have never heard of protein supplementation or the methodology harming a deer. Appreciate that there are thousands [ maybe tens of thousands? ] of people feeding supplemental protein . While it may not be that common in the north? it is very common in the south. Simply look at all the manufacturers of protein starting with Purina and the scale can be better understood . Taking it a step forward there is a wealth of data showing significant improvements in all metrics of health for deer fed supplemental protein. This outcome holds true irrespective of habitat.

Continuing with the benefits, supplementation can take the peaks and valleys out of the nutritional plane common in most habitats. Rare is the location that can meet all the nutritional needs of deer 365 days a year year in and year out. A high quality pellet also supplements vitamins and minerals that may be lacking in even the best forages. Take a quick look at how the nutritional content of human food has declined over the past few decades and it is an easy segue to believe that could be true for wildlife as well. I see significant improvement in fawn survival and recruitment success.

Supplementation also adds variety. On my farm I have quality year round ag specifically for deer. Yet it is a daily occurrence to see deer hitting the feeders. Why? Conventional wisdom says deer [ most animals ] know whats good for them and will seek out the nutrition needed.

2) Whether a herd is above ,below, or at carrying capacity has no relationship to supplemental feed. That is a management choice or lack there of. Practice QDM irrespective of the choice to feed.

3) EHD and feeding or baiting have no correlation whatsoever. EHD is transmitted by a midge to deer. If you meant to say CWD I still contend there is no relationship .The fact is that supplemental feeding improves deer health and ' could ? ' help deer recover from EHD better. What I know is that in La. EHD is common but not always fatal because deer have developed immunities. I never see signs of EHD on my farm.

Lastly while this may not be important to many I believe anecdotally that protein supplementation done properly adds 10-15% in antler growth . The key is ...done properly. This means having enough feeders to reach a majority if not all of the resident deer , feeders kept full especially Jan - August and all stress periods, and a high quality pellet designed for deer is used. I can continue with benefits but thats enough for now.

Now, having said all that I think protein supplementation is the last thing most should consider. Using the analogy of plugging hole in the bucket this is the last step that should be considered. Protein supplementation is an expensive long term program.

Most failures result from unrealistic expectations. EX:
Putting a feeder out on the 100 acres or less and believing that will produce a booner. Possible but unlikely.
Starting a feeding program but still shooting [ or having neighbors shoot ] immature deer. Supplementation has no value if you aren't getting deer into mature age classes.
Putting a feeder out and feeding horse and mule feed or whatever is cheap at the coop.--Wont work
Putting a few feeder out and wondering why you never see quality bucks when what is happening is the neighbors are shooting them.
Starting a feed program and after one year with no results quitting-- Facts are it takes about 3 yrs. to begin seeing any benefit.
And the list goes on.....

What does it take or a supplementation program to work?
First, as Jack pointed out...scale! You need to be in a position to effectively manage enough deer assuring bucks are getting into the older age classes. This requires scale or a game fence....plus discipline.
Second the feeder density has to be adequate to reach a significant percentage of the herd. Consider a feeder to 100 acres optimum with 1-250 acres minimum for measurable benefits.
A quality feed must be fed. Minimum 16% protein though 18-20% commonly fed. The feed should include a great vitamin/mineral pac .
Patience. It may take a while for the deer to adapt and as stated above it generally takes about 3 yrs before results become visible. But then the benefits start accelerating exponentially.

It is my personal opinion that supplementally feeding deer would work every where and it is my experience that it works very well everywhere I have employed it including radically different habitats. However in areas of adequate rainfall there are many other opportunities that are very effective.

Enough from me for now.

EHD is cause by a midge and that midge enters the nasal cavity of the deer. It is not the supplement feed that causes an issue but the increased face to face contact. It is true that the midge is the disease vector between deer. I didn't say that the baiting was the cause of EHD simply that there seems to be a correlation between high baiting areas and EHD. Correlation is not dispositive of causal. I'm not suggesting that the feed itself is causing an issue but as you point out what you feed can make a difference. Most of the issues are related to the methods often used with supplemental feeding. Unlike penned animals, free ranging deer need to desire to eat the feed which usually means some kind of attractant aspect. This can congregate deer in ways that contribute to disease vectors with some diseases.

When I used the word "dramatic", I was referring to cases where deer become dependent on the supplemental feed and populations rise beyond the natural BCC and then for some reason, the supplemental feeding program suddenly stops. The impact don't stop at deer. In some areas, other factors have caused high populations and the effects can be dramatic. Deer can significantly damage critical habitat for many birds and small vertebrates. Necropsy studies show all kinds of issues with the deer. Then a combination of disease and lack of food hit the deer population itself.

I'm simply trying to contrast these risks with a food plot. Deer much more naturally distribute themselves when feeding in a food plot than point source feed. When someone decides to abandon a food plot for whatever reason, the changes in the available food change much more slowly over time than when supplemental food artificially increase numbers and then is stopped.

I'm not suggesting that any of this is applicable in your case. My concern is that less experienced folks will see supplemental feeding as a magic bullet or substitute for habitat management. There is a big difference between an advanced program that employs a multipronged approach with professional consultation and decides to add a well thought out supplemental feed program to top it off and the average guy thinking of it as a short-cut to success.

Dahlgren. You are referring to Quantico correct?
Yes. I didn't realize you were that far east. I thought you may be referring to AP Hill and I didn't know they had an antler restriction.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I didn't realize you were that far east. I thought you may be referring to AP Hill and I didn't know they had an antler restriction.
Only 1/2 hour from AP Hill. I've considered checking it out but have only fished there.
 
You guys need to look below ground for the answer. Genetics affecting the herd quality has been debunked already. The MSU deer lab did a multi-year study where they swapped trophy deer from their high productivity ag country with small deer from their low quality forested areas. They flip flopped environments with the genetics. After 4 years, there was no difference in deer size. The finding was that the size difference was driven by nutrition. I bet if you overlayed the national corn and soybean yield maps with with the B&C entries by county, you'd see a near perfect correlation between crop yields and book entries.

Up where I hunt, the native soil is 5.5 pH. The winters are longer, summers shorter, and native food is scarce unless introduced by man or disturbance. Take a look at what happens to nutrient availability when soil pH's are off, and you'll find out why you've got smaller bodies and poor antlers. It's the antler minerals that are essentially unavailable to deer at low soil pH's. Then throw in a situation where minerals are out of balance and tied up, even if pH is more properly balanced.

This is why every time I do some cutting to create new browse and cover, I'll go in and put down the right lime to balance Ca/Mg ratios and include some gypsum to get sulfur out there. Most of what deer need is out there in many places already, except for some of the leachables like boron and sulfur. Those nutrients just need to be balanced and unlocked. The root acids and diversity will do the rest. You just keep cutting and spreading lime and gypsum.

View attachment 21193

I want to flesh out the "debunking" genetics comment a bit. That MSU study was great and it shows that hunters often blame underlying genetics when the issue is either directly nutrition or epigenetics as influenced by nutrition. However that does not mean that genetics are not an important factor in body and antler size. Deer that evolved further north have base genetics that will produce much larger bodies than deer that evolved in the south. Large bodies are heat retention efficient and small bodies are heat dissipation efficient. Moving a deer with southern genetics to the north will not cause it or its offspring to produce the large bodies of northern deer. As deer have been transported and stocked, there are areas in the south that have some northern genetics and those pockets produce larger bodied deer.

The bottom line with genetics is this:

- Genetics are often blamed for small deer when nutrition is the issue.
- Underlying genetics can not be changed in a free ranging deer herd by "culling" bucks.
- If your deer are not limited by age or nutrition, they will be limited by the underlying genetics but there is nothing you can do about that.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Only 1/2 hour from AP Hill. I've considered checking it out but have only fished there.

You should. I know the guy that runs the program there and he is top notch. I will say that deer in that area are not on an upswing these days but I have seen some pictures of outstanding deer from that base....but it is certainly not Radford :emoji_slight_smile:
 
I want to flesh out the "debunking" genetics comment a bit. That MSU study was great and it shows that hunters often blame underlying genetics when the issue is either directly nutrition or epigenetics as influenced by nutrition. However that does not mean that genetics are not an important factor in body and antler size. Deer that evolved further north have base genetics that will produce much larger bodies than deer that evolved in the south. Large bodies are heat retention efficient and small bodies are heat dissipation efficient. Moving a deer with southern genetics to the north will not cause it or its offspring to produce the large bodies of northern deer. As deer have been transported and stocked, there are areas in the south that have some northern genetics and those pockets produce larger bodied deer.

The bottom line with genetics is this:

- Genetics are often blamed for small deer when nutrition is the issue.
- Underlying genetics can not be changed in a free ranging deer herd by "culling" bucks.
- If your deer are not limited by age or nutrition, they will be limited by the underlying genetics but there is nothing you can do about that.

Thanks,

Jack
Just hitting the like button wasn't enough. Spot on Jack. I'll do us all a favor and not elaborate ad nauseam to your post... Well one thing. I have found long term high quality nutrition has a profound effect on deer easily achieving what most managers are after.
 
Last edited:
Top