Food plots for feeding deer

[Mortenson]

Jsasker007, that's interesting, and does make sense. Ironically, the largest racked buck at our farm this year has the lightest body by far of all the bucks. I doubt he'd dress over 170. The buck I killed probably had 80 lbs on him, and 25" less antler. I have pics of button bucks that would dress way over 100 and yearlings that look like they'd dress 175, but again, then I always get thrown off on how big can a yearling's rack be, and what becomes of those deer when they are 2.5 y.o. I can never ID a yearling the next year when he becomes 2.5. Back to our largest racked buck this year, he's not a day over 4.5, but depending on how big can a yearling's rack get in the wild, he could be a 3.5. No one has ever been able to tell me yet how big can a yearling get. If they can grow 110" racks, then he could be 3.5. I put pics (of him 2 years ago) on this site before and people guessed him as yearling based on body. I think the fence guys who breed for antlers are growing yearlings that are damn near booners. So maybe a 110" in the wild isn't so far-fetched.

 

[yoderjac]

Every deer has two parents that are passing on genetics bbut you never hear of anyone trying to improve the quality of the does. There has to be certain does that have better genes than others. Guy i talked to from mathews told me that he manages 9,000 acres for quality deer and they try to leave the biggest bodied does because they have bigger fawns and when those fawns are bucks they are always on the upper end of the trophy deer spectrum. They also have an extensive feeding program so the nutrition is as good as can be.

A lot of folks confuse QDM with Trophy management. QDM focuses on improving the herd. It is not genetics focused at all. If focuses on having a normal age and social structure through harvest selection and improving herd health through nutrition. The only possible genetic influence may be a secondary epigenetic response to improved nutrition. In free ranging deer the underlying genetics are what they are. Antler size and body weights are typical metrics used to evaluate the progress of a program, not the end goal. The general end goal of QDM is to have a healthy herd in balance with the underlying BCC.

Selective harvest of does has an impact on the next cohort but has no genetic impact on antler size. There are lots of factors that influence fawn development and the body size of a doe is only one of these many factors.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[BenAllgood]

Every deer has two parents that are passing on genetics bbut you never hear of anyone trying to improve the quality of the does. There has to be certain does that have better genes than others. Guy i talked to from mathews told me that he manages 9,000 acres for quality deer and they try to leave the biggest bodied does because they have bigger fawns and when those fawns are bucks they are always on the upper end of the trophy deer spectrum. They also have an extensive feeding program so the nutrition is as good as can be.

I look at it a little different than some I suppose. I don't care anything about button bucks or the yearling bucks that haven't dispersed yet. They'll be gone pretty soon and have no impact on the deer using my property after that.

 

[yoderjac]

I look at it a little different than some I suppose. I don't care anything about button bucks or the yearling bucks that haven't dispersed yet. They'll be gone pretty soon and have no impact on the deer using my property after that.

Well...It depends. One strategy we use for harvesting does is during archery season when they are with offspring and button bucks are discernible, we will harvest mom and let the button walk. That button that has been orphaned seems to have less chance of relocating. Presuming our habitat has been improved to exceed the surrounding area, that buck and his mother will have benefited from our improvement all their lives. Bucks that are dispersed into our area have the disadvantage of being the progeny of a doe who did not benefit from our habitat improvements and who did not himself benefit from them during his first year.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Mortenson]

This all sounds a little too complicated for me.

 

[jsasker007]

I'm pretty sure QDM is just one piece of the trophy puzzle. How could you have the same quality of trophy deer without QDM as with QDM? You can't. No long winded explanations will convince me otherwise. And i'm not even a self-proclaimed expert----just common sense. This all circles back to what Baker was saying----better quality feeds available=better deer. Plug in the missing pieces of the puzzle for the deer herds needs in your particular area and the deer reach their full potential. Boils down to age,genetics and nutrition.

 

[davidhelmly]

I'm pretty sure QDM is just one piece of the trophy puzzle. How could you have the same quality of trophy deer without QDM as with QDM? You can't. No long winded explanations will convince me otherwise. And i'm not even a self-proclaimed expert----just common sense. This all circles back to what Baker was saying----better quality feeds available=better deer. Plug in the missing pieces of the puzzle for the deer herds needs in your particular area and the deer reach their full potential. Boils down to age,genetics and nutrition.

I pretty much agree with your post but you can’t do anything about genetics so it’s basically age and nutrition.

 

[BenAllgood]

Well...It depends. One strategy we use for harvesting does is during archery season when they are with offspring and button bucks are discernible, we will harvest mom and let the button walk. That button that has been orphaned seems to have less chance of relocating. Presuming our habitat has been improved to exceed the surrounding area, that buck and his mother will have benefited from our improvement all their lives. Bucks that are dispersed into our area have the disadvantage of being the progeny of a doe who did not benefit from our habitat improvements and who did not himself benefit from them during his first year.

Thanks,

Jack

Correct. It depends on your situation. If you shoot the mama, chances are she won't be the cause of her son's dispersal prior to the upcoming rut. If you're not going to shoot the mama, taking out her son won't have an impact on the future residents of your property. Whether you shoot him or not, he's going to be gone shortly (If his mama is still a resident).

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

I'm pretty sure QDM is just one piece of the trophy puzzle. How could you have the same quality of trophy deer without QDM as with QDM? You can't. No long winded explanations will convince me otherwise. And i'm not even a self-proclaimed expert----just common sense. This all circles back to what Baker was saying----better quality feeds available=better deer. Plug in the missing pieces of the puzzle for the deer herds needs in your particular area and the deer reach their full potential. Boils down to age,genetics and nutrition.

I pretty much agree with your post but you can’t do anything about genetics so it’s basically age and nutrition.

State property and urban areas prove every year you can have trophy deer without QDM.

My train of thought is...

Start quantifying a trophy based off of age and be done with it. Genetic potential was mentioned. Most deer will never reach that net boon mark no matter what. However if every buck was allowed to reach 5 years old IMO they would ALL be “trophies” based off age. It just so happens most 5 year old bucks have pretty respectable racks.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

Well...It depends. One strategy we use for harvesting does is during archery season when they are with offspring and button bucks are discernible, we will harvest mom and let the button walk. That button that has been orphaned seems to have less chance of relocating. Presuming our habitat has been improved to exceed the surrounding area, that buck and his mother will have benefited from our improvement all their lives. Bucks that are dispersed into our area have the disadvantage of being the progeny of a doe who did not benefit from our habitat improvements and who did not himself benefit from them during his first year.

Thanks,

Jack

Correct. It depends on your situation. If you shoot the mama, chances are she won't be the cause of her son's dispersal prior to the upcoming rut. If you're not going to shoot the mama, taking out her son won't have an impact on the future residents of your property. Whether you shoot him or not, he's going to be gone shortly (If his mama is still a resident).

It goes both ways. My area has produced more than it’s fair share of huge bucks. There is just as good of a chance that a doe 3 miles away will produce the next booner as there is in a doe on our property doing it.

If a doe on our property produces that top end buck that dispersed to another property he is going to sire offspring that disperses our direction. What’s the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yoderjac]

State property and urban areas prove every year you can have trophy deer without QDM.

My train of thought is...

Start quantifying a trophy based off of age and be done with it. Genetic potential was mentioned. Most deer will never reach that net boon mark no matter what. However if every buck was allowed to reach 5 years old IMO they would ALL be “trophies” based off age. It just so happens most 5 year old bucks have pretty respectable racks.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you don't even have to stop there. The definition of a "Trophy" may differ for different folks. I'll go with this one..."A memento of a significant accomplishment." I had a year and a half 4 point mounted for a youngster. I told him that I would pay to have deer mounted for him regardless of what it was. He could choose for it to be his first deer or could wait until he killed a sizable buck. He chose the first deer he shot because "I'll never shoot a first deer again!"

Personally, I've taken to saving and mounting jawbones. They are easy to finish and are more of and to me, it is more of an accomplishment to get close enough to a mature deer to harvest him with a bow than it is to harvest a younger buck with a larger rack.

Thanks,


Jack

 

[yoderjac]

It goes both ways. My area has produced more than it’s fair share of huge bucks. There is just as good of a chance that a doe 3 miles away will produce the next booner as there is in a doe on our property doing it.

If a doe on our property produces that top end buck that dispersed to another property he is going to sire offspring that disperses our direction. What’s the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it depend on your location and the difference between your habitat and the surrounding habitat where bucks relocate from. The reality here is that most mature bucks are killed during the rut when they are ranging pretty long distances. During early archery season we kill mostly local bucks, but as the rut kicks in the percentage of "foreign" bucks (those which we don't have in our camera inventory) increases.

In my case, the yearling that immigrates into my property was generally the progeny of a doe living on more marginal habitat and comes to us a year behind a fawn that stays. I'm not sure how much difference this makes in the long run. That was one of the earlier question in the thread. I would guess that a buck that starts with an advantage would have a long-term advantage over a buck that starts with a deficit, but I don't have any data to back up that notion.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[BenAllgood]

To me, the most valuable bucks using my property are those 2 and older that are residents. Their value to me goes up with age. I can't affect the genetics, but I can affect the nutrition (which the thread started as) and the age. Age is the most important to me. That being said, I personally don't shoot yearling bucks, but I don't lose sleep over it if they are shot. In fact, I tried to get my youngest son to shoot a yearling buck this week, but he said he didn't want to because it was too small. It would have been his first, and bigger than my first.

 

[yoderjac]

To me, the most valuable bucks using my property are those 2 and older that are residents. Their value to me goes up with age. I can't affect the genetics, but I can affect the nutrition (which the thread started as) and the age. Age is the most important to me. That being said, I personally don't shoot yearling bucks, but I don't lose sleep over it if they are shot. In fact, I tried to get my youngest son to shoot a yearling buck this week, but he said he didn't want to because it was too small. It would have been his first, and bigger than my first.

My position exactly. We have our experienced hunters target 3 1/2 and older bucks (simply because that comprises our top 5% of bucks. However, we let novice hunter shoot what they want. We are looking for a balance between recreation, recruiting new folks into hunting, QDM, and timber value.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Baker]

Just back from the beautiful Hebron Valley in Va and will try to make a sensible post at sometime about what I saw in the valley as well as my sisters farm as it relates to this thread. But for now, my goodness, I never expected this thread to encourage such a continued conversation. Great. I have a couple of thoughts on what I see posted while I was gone.

First. I wish everyone would just completely forget the word genetics! As many have stated genetics are what they are and to change them takes a long time and a lot of intensity. Frankly, I believe the genetics in almost all of the country are capable of meeting or exceeding most hunters expectations. Rarely is the genetic capability of deer the limiting factor.

NUTRITION IS! I propose that almost all deer herds around the country---with a few exceptions--do not express their full genetic potential because of nutritional limitations. This I believe. There are simply very few properties around where nutrition is 100% 365 days a year throughout a deers life. And bluntly I do not believe enough TSI or timber management and native habitat management can ever get you there. Native browse is not enough. Just my opinion but its backed up with a lot of anecdotal experience.

And enhanced nutrition raises the productivity of all age classes. Some wait till bucks are 3 to shoot. Some shoot yearlings or anything that walks by. Some wait till bucks are mature. Doesn't matter . Nutrition helps all age classes be better. Abundant, lush, readily available, easy to access, highly nutritious year round, digestible nutrition . Want to grow better deer? Start here. Then all age classes improve and if you are fortunate enough to allow bucks to fully mature then you can see what the genetic potential actually is.

Acronyms Good grief. Can we just do away with them too? QDM, TDM and I'm sure others can add more. First, can there be a more variable word than 'quality'? Certainly whats quality to one bears little resemblance to what might be quality to another. This true across the paradigm of mgt. Seems to me the various acronyms are more a way to rationalize ones approach and segregate . And what is a trophy? That might be more controversial than what is quality. We all have our goals, desires, expectations and circumstances.I applaud them all. I propose that irrespective of the situation all outcomes spawn from a focus on a few very straightforward basics. The Vince Lambardi intense focus on the basics. Its really quite simple. But as the saying goes---Says easy, does hard. Don't see a lot of value in acronyms.

I like the dialogue. Thanks to all for the input.

 

[ksgobbler]

My anecdotal experience says we had more large deer before non residents and when residents had to draw a buck tag. Why because they got to live long enough to meet their potential. That is long before a food plot was ever a thing. Its really sad to see where we were, where we are now, and where we are headed.

 

[SD51555]

I propose that almost all deer herds around the country---with a few exceptions--do not express their full genetic potential because of nutritional limitations. This I believe. There are simply very few properties around where nutrition is 100% 365 days a year throughout a deers life. And bluntly I do not believe enough TSI or timber management and native habitat management can ever get you there. Native browse is not enough. Just my opinion but its backed up with a lot of anecdotal experience.

Yep. Trying to deliver year round nutrition in the wild is like trying to ride a curling stone across the ice and stop on a dime. Good luck.

If a person could provide a smoothed out 12-month nutrition program, it'd still fail (in the wild) simply because deer will breed up, or keep moving in, until they reach the breaking point of the system, or you'll have to risk over-harvesting them. This is why the biggest harvester of deer by me is often times mother nature. My area could support 300 DPSM (sorry) in the summer and fall. Hard to keep 10 DPSM alive in a harsh 4-5 month winter.

 

[Baker]

Yep. Trying to deliver year round nutrition in the wild is like trying to ride a curling stone across the ice and stop on a dime. Good luck.

If a person could provide a smoothed out 12-month nutrition program, it'd still fail (in the wild) simply because deer will breed up, or keep moving in, until they reach the breaking point of the system, or you'll have to risk over-harvesting them. This is why the biggest harvester of deer by me is often times mother nature. My area could support 300 DPSM (sorry) in the summer and fall. Hard to keep 10 DPSM alive in a harsh 4-5 month winter.

It can be done in the south

 

[SwampCat]

My anecdotal experience says we had more large deer before non residents and when residents had to draw a buck tag. Why because they got to live long enough to meet their potential. That is long before a food plot was ever a thing. Its really sad to see where we were, where we are now, and where we are headed.

even with the most nutritious food - bucks have to live long enough to realize at least some of their potential. Not only can the right food improve antler quality, it can help to keep some bucks more at home on your property and also help to attract bucks from properties with lessor quality food choices. You Kansas folks might be wise to delve a little deeper into food plots. I know several folks - non residents who regularly hunt kansas - keep their corn feeders full but dont have food plots.

 

[Catscratch]

I took this pic yesterday. He is representative of a KS deer that lives where there is very little ag and pretty much no substantial food plots. Acrons fall for 5 or 6 weeks total and then are gone. I think he looks healthy as an ox even though it's the tail end of the rut and he has probably lost quite a bit of wt.

To speak of which ksgobbler references I grew up in the glory days of KS hunting. On average deer were much larger then but State game management was different then too; there were no plots or corn piles, that stuff hadn't been glorified yet and were not talked about or even known about in the groups I frequented. Deer were manage to reach older ages though and that is a difference maker.

I truly believe that some parts of the country have a natural habitat that provides a good nutritional plane. Large animals have survived and even prospered in such places long before we started intervening. I'm not saying that plots and feeders can't help in such places, but not every place is void of quality food. In fact I'm very much trying to improve the nutrition available to deer on my place, but that doesn't mean they are starving if I don't. I also have the opinion that if I can improve the native forbs and browse that I stand a better chance of helping deer than providing a foreign food. But, I'm adding foreign plots just the same to hopefully help.

I was in MO over Thanksgiving. I was shocked to see acorns on the ground this late in the yr. We don't have that in my part of KS. The other thing I noticed was that there were only mature trees. If there was a pasture it appeared to be cool season grasses (probably fescue or brome). Other than acorns I didn't see much that appeared to be deer food. Every part of the nation is different. I'm sure that what you are accustomed to persuades your opinion. I would certainly have a different viewpoint if I had grown up in Maine.