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.
