Can QDM make hunting harder?

[Baker]

The problem is scale. In order to have a measureable impact on the herd, you need to be able to influence the major factors. A deer's home range will vary with habitat. Typically it is smaller in the best habitat and larger in poor habitat. I would say a good average ballpark is 1,000 acres. So, let's say you have about 400 acres like we do. You will have few deer that spend most of their time on your property. You can increase that somewhat by habitat projects and food plots, but deer will spend much of their lives on neighboring properties. So, if you are letting young bucks walk and trying to harvest does to keep the population in balance and restore age structure, but your neighbors are shooting anything with antlers and letting does walk because they want more deer, your efforts will not have the desired effect. If you actually want to grow deer, you need to have enough scale. This could be owning 1,000+ acres yourself, or forming a cooperative with like-minded neighbors.

The second thing most folks don't understand is that you are limited by your dirt. Our food plots comprise a small fraction of a deer's overall diet. Most of their food comes from native foods. The primary purpose of food plots in a QDM strategy is either to provide quality food during gaps when nature is stingy or to attract does for management harvest. The bottom like is the fertility of your soils eventually limit your deer. QDM practices on a sufficient scale can help you get the most out of your deer herd but folks on poor soil will never produce deer like folks on fertile soil. If you look at P&Y or B&C books and map them, you will find a strong correlation with crop production. It is not the crops that make the big deer (although they don't hurt), it is the fact that we produce crops on the most fertile soil because it is more cost effective for farmers. It is the underlying soil fertility that supports the large deer.

The third thing many forget is sanctuary. You can make a place a deer paradise with habitat and food, but if it has lots of activity and hunting pressure and a nearby area is off-limits to humans for one reason or another, guess where the big bucks will spend most of their time during hunting season.

So, if you really want to shoot big bucks above all else, unless you have a big budget and lots of acreage, forget QDM. Spend your money on travel and hunting leases. Take B&C and P&Y records and start saving your money for scouting and eventually leasing land in those or nearby counties. On the other hand, if you enjoy habitat work and you like the idea of harvesting deer on you own land and want to give back to the sport that benefitted you, focus on improving your land and enjoying it. We all define success differently.

Thanks,

Jack

Excellent post Jack. The QDM basics of age, nutrition, and genetics are all that is needed to grow the highest quality deer possible. For many there are two limiters; age and nutrition. The challenge with age is that many [ most ] people don't have enough scale to effectively manage a deer herd nor assure that bucks reach antler maturity at 4 or older. Bucks move far more and farther than most realize. While controversial and emotional the primary difference between scale and a { large enough } game fenced property is the opportunity for bucks to age. Beyond that there is nothing that can be done on a high fenced property than a low fence property.

The limiter with genetics in most cases is nutrition. Many people believe that their bucks aren't getting big because they have lousy genetics when in reality the problem is nutrition [ assuming age is accomplished ] . Put a deer herd on 100% nutrition 365 days a year for for a generation and see what happens! Magic.

I also agree with your soil comments....with qualifications. Unless there are compensatory measures taken to overcome nutritional deficiencies cause by poor soils then the soil is a real limitation. However, I have found it possible to overcome weak soil with food plot density and strategy as well as supplemental protein feed. Could the deer be better in my poor soils if I had 'mid western prairie soil" ? Maybe. Certainly better soils would make herd improvements easier. But the limitation of poor soils can be overcome.

 

[yoderjac]

In your opinion, what exactly is missing from the soil that limits the size of antlers? I firmly believe that soil composition varies greatly throughout the country and has an affect on deer reaching maximum health. Poor soil can have many different definitions, but I would be willing to bet that most of them boil down to having too little or too much of certain minerals (or elements) that plants need for proper growth and nutrient production. Isn't that the first identifier of soil fertility... to look at a chunk of land and observe the vegetation, or lack of vegetation? I know this questioning stems from the Redmond Salts thread (where we disagreed on this) and I don't want it to turn into what it did, but since it's been brought back up and you now appear to agree I would like to know more of your thoughts on it.

It is different things in different places that limit productivity. If you look at production maps of crops like beans, corn, and others, you see where our better soils are in the country. These are largely places where glaciated soils were deposited. Many of the less fertile soils are thinner and eroded. These are general classifications. The specifics of soils vary greatly and those specifics effect productivity. Weather is a factor too. Things like annual rainfall, temperature extremes, and climate play some role. The bottom line is that we as a nation farm the richest soils because that is where farming is generally the most cost effective. Where soils are more marginal, they are used for other things. So, if one looks at book buck harvest locations there is a very high correlation with soil fertility in general.

That is not to say we can not significantly improve soil quality in limited areas like food plots. Adding minerals, either basic (NPK) and trace allows us to do that. The only place where we disagree about adding minerals is which minerals to add and why to add them to food plots. You take the position that one should add the minerals that deer use. I take the position that deer are not generally deficient in trace minerals to the point where minerals are the limiting factor but that in most cases they are limited by nutrition. I take the position that we should add the minerals to food plots that improve our crops, not because the deer get those specific minerals (which they do), but because it improve the carb and protein content of the crops which deer generally need more. I suggest we should soil test and apply the minerals needed to improve our crops.

I also take the position that adding minerals (fertilizing) should be a secondary and shorter-term plan. While some fertilization may always be needed in some areas, good soil health practices like minimizing tillage and building OM top down will improve nutrient cycling ability of the soil for the long term. I'm taking a longer term sustainable view of soil health. I see those of use working with marginal soils starting with farmer like fertilization and then reducing it as we improve the soil health over time. Often, it is not that minerals are not present but that they are not readily available to the crops. My goal is to minimize fertilization.

Here is another place where we may differ. As I see it, our food plots are a small fraction of the diet of a deer. No matter what you do in your food plot to improve the soils and the crops, only a fraction of what ends up in the belly of a deer will come from there. The rest of their diet comes from native foods. It is simply not practical (or cost effective) to try to change soil fertility over a very large area as a deer's home range covers. So, deer will eventually be limited by the underlying soil fertility.

The role that food plots play in QDM is not to replace quality native foods with even better quality planted foods. The role of food plots in QDM is primarily to cover periods when quality native foods become limited. It is during these gaps where poor nutrition can limit deer.

So, my general position on QDM is this:

1) You need sufficient scale to be effective.
2) Deer quality (health - body weight and antler size are metrics) can be limited by a number of factors.
- Genetics - This can't be changed in free ranging deer populations, so if you want to change this you need a high fence.
- Age - Bucks require age to develop larger antlers.
- Nutrition - This is the limiting factor in most cases. Targeting is the key. More is not better. Anything that does not end up in the belly of a deer does not contribute. The source of the nutrition does not matter. If it comes from a native food source or comes from a planted one, if the nutrition is the same so is the result. Deer choose what to eat by many factors and they are browsers by nature, not grazers. Deer may chose a quality native food source because it is in cover and perceived safer than an even higher quality planted food source because it is perceived as less safe. With free ranging deer we can't control what they eat. The best we can do is figure out when nature will be stingy and match quality crops for those gaps. The more the quality and availability of native foods decline, the more risk deer will accept for a high quality food source.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Catscratch]

Baker, I'm curious as to your thoughts on a game fenced property with a supplemental feed program vs a game fenced property with extensively managed native vegetation. Do you think that vegetation "could" provide the same nutritional gains as feed (all else being equal) if it's aggressively fertilized and amended per soil sampling? Or is this a situation similar to what body builders go through where they physically can't eat enough protein for the gains they want and start drinking supplemental nutrition (protein and calorie shakes)?

Another question on your research and experience on deer travel... It's obvious that bucks roam (probably more than most of us assumed) during the fall. What about during the spring and summer while antlers are growing? Is it possible to grow healthy deer and keep them homebodies without a game fence during this time period, or are they roamers then also? Or does it take year round nutrition to see affects of good nutrition (assuming age is comparable in all scenarios)?

As I've said before I'm a huge advocate of improving the soil as much as possible with both mineral and fertilizer and letting the native vegetation deliver it to the critters. I justify this expense and approach as the property I'm working with is a cattle ranch and these things increase gains in cattle. My hope and reasoning has always been that 1000 acres of well managed native habitat and soil is better overall than 30 acres of food plots. I have no proof of my reasoning other than what I've seen with cattle, which doesn't always translate to other species.

 

[yoderjac]

Excellent post Jack. The QDM basics of age, nutrition, and genetics are all that is needed to grow the highest quality deer possible. For many there are two limiters; age and nutrition. The challenge with age is that many [ most ] people don't have enough scale to effectively manage a deer herd nor assure that bucks reach antler maturity at 4 or older. Bucks move far more and farther than most realize. While controversial and emotional the primary difference between scale and a { large enough } game fenced property is the opportunity for bucks to age. Beyond that there is nothing that can be done on a high fenced property than a low fence property.

The limiter with genetics in most cases is nutrition. Many people believe that their bucks aren't getting big because they have lousy genetics when in reality the problem is nutrition [ assuming age is accomplished ] . Put a deer herd on 100% nutrition 365 days a year for for a generation and see what happens! Magic.

I also agree with your soil comments....with qualifications. Unless there are compensatory measures taken to overcome nutritional deficiencies cause by poor soils then the soil is a real limitation. However, I have found it possible to overcome weak soil with food plot density and strategy as well as supplemental protein feed. Could the deer be better in my poor soils if I had 'mid western prairie soil" ? Maybe. Certainly better soils would make herd improvements easier. But the limitation of poor soils can be overcome.

Yes, you bring up something that I ignored which is supplemental feeding. I understand there are probably some areas where this is the norm. It has the potential to create a lot of secondary issues and personally I avoid it. Perhaps in some more extreme areas it is a necessary evil. There are also legal issues with it in my area.

I would disagree about high fence verses low fence when it comes to genetics. There are many population dynamics models that show one would need to kill an extremely high percentage of bucks to even begin to alter the underlying genetics and since 50% of the genetics are carried by does which can't be easily selected, it would take many generations. In a high fenced area with no ingress/egress of deer this is possible.

Your comment on folks thinking the issue is genetics when it is really nutrition, brings up the topic of epigenetics. That is a whole new can of worms, but the good news is that it is addressed through nutrition so from a practical standpoint, QDM covers it.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Baker]

Baker, I'm curious as to your thoughts on a game fenced property with a supplemental feed program vs a game fenced property with extensively managed native vegetation. Do you think that vegetation "could" provide the same nutritional gains as feed (all else being equal) if it's aggressively fertilized and amended per soil sampling? Or is this a situation similar to what body builders go through where they physically can't eat enough protein for the gains they want and start drinking supplemental nutrition (protein and calorie shakes)?

Another question on your research and experience on deer travel... It's obvious that bucks roam (probably more than most of us assumed) during the fall. What about during the spring and summer while antlers are growing? Is it possible to grow healthy deer and keep them homebodies without a game fence during this time period, or are they roamers then also? Or does it take year round nutrition to see affects of good nutrition (assuming age is comparable in all scenarios)?

As I've said before I'm a huge advocate of improving the soil as much as possible with both mineral and fertilizer and letting the native vegetation deliver it to the critters. I justify this expense and approach as the property I'm working with is a cattle ranch and these things increase gains in cattle. My hope and reasoning has always been that 1000 acres of well managed native habitat and soil is better overall than 30 acres of food plots. I have no proof of my reasoning other than what I've seen with cattle, which doesn't always translate to other species.

My thoughts to your first question are...maybe and depends. I'll go a little farther and say ...probably, but it depends on the part of the country. In the Fla. Keys the answer is probably no. In the mid west probably yes. My farm has lousy soils. But I have over 10% of it in year round ag scattered all over the farm. I do TSI every year which creates an enormous flush of new growth native browse. I think this combo far more important than supplemental protein pellets . Thus the short answer to your first question is that in your circumstance yes I think you could achieve an adequate nutritional plane to meet all the deers annual needs...though I'm not sure where you live?

Second question: I have found that if the habitat is robust with all a deers needs meet they tend to travel very little spring and summer and it is probable that they will stay quite tight to quality food sources. I see bucks feeding in the same field all summer even though there may be another field 1/4 mile away. The problem comes when fall hits and they scatter like the wind from where they summered irrespective of habitat.

Regarding your approach to soils I think you are spot on.

 

[Baker]

Yes, you bring up something that I ignored which is supplemental feeding. I understand there are probably some areas where this is the norm. It has the potential to create a lot of secondary issues and personally I avoid it. Perhaps in some more extreme areas it is a necessary evil. There are also legal issues with it in my area.

I would disagree about high fence verses low fence when it comes to genetics. There are many population dynamics models that show one would need to kill an extremely high percentage of bucks to even begin to alter the underlying genetics and since 50% of the genetics are carried by does which can't be easily selected, it would take many generations. In a high fenced area with no ingress/egress of deer this is possible.

Your comment on folks thinking the issue is genetics when it is really nutrition, brings up the topic of epigenetics. That is a whole new can of worms, but the good news is that it is addressed through nutrition so from a practical standpoint, QDM covers it.

Thanks,

Jack

I doubt we disagree very much. Yes on a small high fenced place it is possible to alter genetics thru dramatic harvest strategies. My experience is with larger...thousands of acres....properties where I believe effectively altering genetics is essential impossible. Certainly not with any strategy anyone I know would employ. Theoretical...maybe. Practical...No.

Epigenetics is one of my favorite topics! I have seen the power of epigenetic response and read much on the subject. Ms. State has done interesting research in this area though they call it the maternal effect. Stuart Stedman owner of the Faith Ranch has studied this extensively and written fascinating articles on the subject. Let us not believe genetics are fixed. Let us know that nutrition profoundly effects outcomes...positively or negatively.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

The only necessary thing about supplemental feeding is the need to stop doing it. Areas that say it is necessary to supplemental feed should be saying its necessary to reduce the dpsm to within the carrying capacity of the land.

 

[Baker]

The only necessary thing about supplemental feeding is the need to stop doing it. Areas that say it is necessary to supplemental feed should be saying its necessary to reduce the dpsm to within the carrying capacity of the land.

Depending on the recruitment one is willing to live with and goals for the overall health of a herd irrespective of deer to habitat ratio's I respectfully disagree.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

Depending on the recruitment one is willing to live with and goals for the overall health of a herd irrespective of deer to habitat ratio's I respectfully disagree.

So why doesn't society accept top tier athletes taking steroids to reach their bodies full potential?

 

[Baker]

So why doesn't society accept top tier athletes taking steroids to reach their bodies full potential?

Help me understand what steroids have to do with protein supplementation?

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

Depending on the recruitment one is willing to live with and goals for the overall health of a herd irrespective of deer to habitat ratio's I respectfully disagree.

Respectfully, it is this selfish way of thinking that has brought many problems to this world and has caused the total extinction (or at least made it so they can not reach maturity before dying off) to many plants and animals.

I love trout fishing and I love catching big brown trout. However I wish I had to go to Europe to do it. Our native brook trout would be better off. Chestnut blight anybody??

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

Help me understand what steroids have to do with protein supplementation?

I'm simply saying it is a way to keep deer numbers unnaturally high given the quality of soil an area has to offer.

 

[Baker]

Respectfully, it is this selfish way of thinking that has brought many problems to this world and has caused the total extinction (or at least made it so they can not reach maturity before dying off) to many plants and animals.

I love trout fishing and I love catching big brown trout. However I wish I had to go to Europe to do it. Our native brook trout would be better off. Chestnut blight anybody??

Bit judgmental are we?

 

[Catscratch]

It is different things in different places that limit productivity. If you look at production maps of crops like beans, corn, and others, you see where our better soils are in the country. These are largely places where glaciated soils were deposited. Many of the less fertile soils are thinner and eroded. These are general classifications. The specifics of soils vary greatly and those specifics effect productivity. Weather is a factor too. Things like annual rainfall, temperature extremes, and climate play some role. The bottom line is that we as a nation farm the richest soils because that is where farming is generally the most cost effective. Where soils are more marginal, they are used for other things. So, if one looks at book buck harvest locations there is a very high correlation with soil fertility in general. We agree, soil fertility can have an affect on antler size.

That is not to say we can not significantly improve soil quality in limited areas like food plots. Adding minerals, either basic (NPK) and trace allows us to do that. The only place where we disagree about adding minerals is which minerals to add and why to add them to food plots. You take the position that one should add the minerals that deer use. I take the position that deer are not generally deficient in trace minerals to the point where minerals are the limiting factor but that in most cases they are limited by nutrition. I take the position that we should add the minerals to food plots that improve our crops, not because the deer get those specific minerals (which they do), but because it improve the carb and protein content of the crops which deer generally need more. I suggest we should soil test and apply the minerals needed to improve our crops. I think we basically agree again. My stance on minerals is they should ALL be addressed, not just the one's that help plants, and not just the one's that help deer. My opinion is that plants are the best delivery method for the minerals.

I also take the position that adding minerals (fertilizing) should be a secondary and shorter-term plan. While some fertilization may always be needed in some areas, good soil health practices like minimizing tillage and building OM top down will improve nutrient cycling ability of the soil for the long term. I'm taking a longer term sustainable view of soil health. I see those of use working with marginal soils starting with farmer like fertilization and then reducing it as we improve the soil health over time. Often, it is not that minerals are not present but that they are not readily available to the crops. My goal is to minimize fertilization. Once again we agree, sort of. I don't see fertilization as a short term endeavor though. I see it as something that needs tested for and compensated for the long term. Some inputs may stabilize after a while but many probably will need considerable adjustment if the soil started out poor. Once again the chemistry is what's needed changed to that available minerals can be uptaken by plants and consequently uptaken by deer.

Here is another place where we may differ. As I see it, our food plots are a small fraction of the diet of a deer. No matter what you do in your food plot to improve the soils and the crops, only a fraction of what ends up in the belly of a deer will come from there. The rest of their diet comes from native foods. It is simply not practical (or cost effective) to try to change soil fertility over a very large area as a deer's home range covers. So, deer will eventually be limited by the underlying soil fertility. We strongly agree here but have different approaches to the issue. It's almost the whole reason I spend so much time with soil improvement and native plants. I've always felt that plots were insignificant to a whitetail's diet. They are fun, but not significant to the goals. With that said, it's why I invest so much into the land away from the plots. This is where deer spend the majority of their time and where they get the majority of their nutrition. That is where I'm putting my efforts... where they feed the most.

The role that food plots play in QDM is not to replace quality native foods with even better quality planted foods. The role of food plots in QDM is primarily to cover periods when quality native foods become limited. It is during these gaps where poor nutrition can limit deer. Good point. Not all native vegetation is palatable all year or has the same protein content all yr. I'm banking on natural diversity and the browsing/grazing nature of whitetails to provide when times are stressed. I'm also banking that healthier native plants are more nutritious during stress periods than plants lacking in fertility/minerals.

So, my general position on QDM is this:

1) You need sufficient scale to be effective.
2) Deer quality (health - body weight and antler size are metrics) can be limited by a number of factors.
- Genetics - This can't be changed in free ranging deer populations, so if you want to change this you need a high fence.
- Age - Bucks require age to develop larger antlers.
- Nutrition - This is the limiting factor in most cases. Targeting is the key. More is not better. Anything that does not end up in the belly of a deer does not contribute. The source of the nutrition does not matter. If it comes from a native food source or comes from a planted one, if the nutrition is the same so is the result. Deer choose what to eat by many factors and they are browsers by nature, not grazers. Deer may chose a quality native food source because it is in cover and perceived safer than an even higher quality planted food source because it is perceived as less safe. With free ranging deer we can't control what they eat. The best we can do is figure out when nature will be stingy and match quality crops for those gaps. The more the quality and availability of native foods decline, the more risk deer will accept for a high quality food source.

Thanks,

Jack

I think we mostly agree but have differences in approach towards it.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

I believe that soil quality is why the deer in my area dont spend much time eating brassica. The soil is able to produce better offerings on its own than what I can provide them.

 

[Baker]

Lets explore a couple of scenarios. Throughout much of Texas this year there was a deep drought. On my ranch we got 5" of rain all year. For the ranches that don't supplemental feed, irrespective of deer density there will be zero fawn recruitment. There will be a material die off again irrespective of deer density.The health of all the deer suffer. I have seen as much as 50% die off in one year from drought. A supplemental feeding program smooths out the radical ups and downs in such situations.

A few years back , Texas was ravaged by wild fires. Hundreds of thousands of acres destroyed . There was nothing but charred ground. The ranches that fed were able to salvage a deer herd that responded well once the rains came and the pastures greened up Perhaps they were selfish. Perhaps their practices bespoke to the end of the world. I see it differently.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

Bit judgmental are we?

I'm not trying to talk down on you or anyone who feeds deer. I'm trying to get across a message that just because an animal lives somewhere doesn't mean it should. In some cases we have altered the natural environment so much that the once native species to an area are no longer survive there so we try to find something else that will. It just so happens that some plants and animals are able to survive in a extremely wide range of conditions.

 

[Baker]

I'm simply saying it is a way to keep deer numbers unnaturally high given the quality of soil an area has to offer.

Can be. But most of the folks I know use it as a supplement and manage all aspects of their herd including density very effectively. I propose that my ranch and farm are well below carrying capacity with or without supplementation.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

Lets explore a couple of scenarios. Throughout much of Texas this year there was a deep drought. On my ranch we got 5" of rain all year. For the ranches that don't supplemental feed, irrespective of deer density there will be zero fawn recruitment. There will be a material die off again irrespective of deer density.The health of all the deer suffer. I have seen as much as 50% die off in one year from drought. A supplemental feeding program smooths out the radical ups and downs in such situations.

A few years back , Texas was ravaged by wild fires. Hundreds of thousands of acres destroyed . There was nothing but charred ground. The ranches that fed were able to salvage a deer herd that responded well once the rains came and the pastures greened up Perhaps they were selfish. Perhaps their practices bespoke to the end of the world. I see it differently.

If these places rely on deer for producing an income I can at least understand the desire to do it.

 

[Catscratch]

My thoughts to your first question are...maybe and depends. I'll go a little farther and say ...probably, but it depends on the part of the country. In the Fla. Keys the answer is probably no. In the mid west probably yes. My farm has lousy soils. But I have over 10% of it in year round ag scattered all over the farm. I do TSI every year which creates an enormous flush of new growth native browse. I think this combo far more important than supplemental protein pellets . Thus the short answer to your first question is that in your circumstance yes I think you could achieve an adequate nutritional plane to meet all the deers annual needs...though I'm not sure where you live?

Same! I have "forest plots" that I cut tree that will regen from root and provide huge amounts of palatable vegetation. Once it outgrows deer browse height I go and cut it all down again. It's a better draw for deer activity than any plot I've planted. I'm in KS. Bottom ground is great, hills are very rocky and marginal fertility at best.

Second question: I have found that if the habitat is robust with all a deers needs meet they tend to travel very little spring and summer and it is probable that they will stay quite tight to quality food sources. I see bucks feeding in the same field all summer even though there may be another field 1/4 mile away. The problem comes when fall hits and they scatter like the wind from where they summered irrespective of habitat.

I've had similar observations with summer patterns. I'm willing to take the chance that a certain percentage of bucks will survive, stay home, or at least come back for the late season. If they are healthy at that time then I'm happy.

Regarding your approach to soils I think you are spot on.