Morning all, I'm about to leave for the beautiful Hebron valley in Va. to visit my sister/bil at their farm for Thanksgiving. And may we all give thanks for the countless blessings we have.
Seems the conversation has shifted to fawn weights and antler size. Dr. Harry Jacobson did landmark studies while at Ms. State on yearling spikes and their future potential debunking the idea that yearling spikes were genetically inferior. I'lll ask him if he also compared weights from yearling to maturity. I don't know.
What he found was there are many reasons a yearling may have spike antlers but that they generally catch up with their multi pointed cohorts by age 3. From there the antler potential evened out. I'll make a wild speculation I cant support that body weights may even out as well. Why?
One big factor in why some yearlings are spikes rather than multi pointed is when they are born. Deer here are my farm start hitting the ground in April while Jack is seeing spotted fawns in Nov. This can be resultant from poor b/d ratios, yearling fawns being bred, or other anomalies. Clearly a fawn born in April has a better start at yearling antlers and body weight than one born in Oct or later, but at least with antler growth they catch up years down the road. Of course if bucks are getting shot at 3 or younger they will be smaller than their yearling cohorts born with branched antlers.
I will also speculate that late born fawns have a poorer chance of survival especially in the north where extreme weather increases mortality Its interesting to think about food supply available for fawns born April vs late summer as well. April hits full spring green up followed by beans peas and summer crops where available. Great for mothers, easy meals and as the fawns are weaned good groceries. Late born fawns have to deal with the transition period between summer fall when things can be a bit weak. If no ag is available tougher sledding for mothers and when weaning for the fawns. Have a mast failure and problem is exasperated. However where small grains are available fawns are typically the first deer in the fields and stay the longest. Very valuable for their start in life.
My experience with body weights in all age classes is that we have shifted the entire bell curve producing heavier deer resultant from enhanced nutrition . Both the deer here on my farm as well as ranch are measurably heavier than the surrounding neighborhood. Regarding the correlation between acorns/fawn weight I wonder if those studies were done in areas where no ag was available? That correlation would make perfect sense if the primary fall food supply was acorns along with no ag during the summer or fall. Just curious.
The data from that military base had no commercial agriculture. There was an agronomy program specifically for wildlife during that time. Many of the landing zones were maintained in clover across the base in addition to acreage planted for wildlife specifically. Poor soils on most of the base. Regular controlled burns are conducted. The agronomist on base once described the base to me as having the capacity to support high numbers of small deer but not low numbers of larger deer. Some parts of the base do have better (Triassic) soils that support higher quality food. Deer in these training areas do have higher body weights than the base overall.
The same acorn correlation holds on my place which is much smaller scale. Again, there is limited if any row-crop commercial ag within about 3 miles of me. Most open land is pasture. My food plot program was in place for about 10 years. There was no statically significant increase in body weights. After some intense timber management (20 acres total of low quality hardwood clear-cuts and 100+ acres of commercial pine thinning both with controlled burns), we began to see small but clear upward trends in weights. There is still a significant year to year correlation between fawn weights and mast crops.
I've been thinking about all of this since you started the thread. Here are some current thoughts: If nutrition is the limiting factor for your deer (which may or may not be the case depending on location), increasing the quantity of quality food over a larger are will benefit deer herds to a measureable extent. I believe the conventional wisdom that a 3% acreage increase in quality foods will have a measureable impact and at 5% it will become significant and at some point beyond that one hits the law of diminishing returns.
However, I think food distribution is important as well. A deer will, by nature, have a significant home range. They will eat where they are. Granted, concentrated quality food (food plots) will cause deer to spend more time near them and to some extent reduce home range, but only to an extent. The traditional way to produce a food plot is high input (Seed, Lime, Fertilizer, Herbicide, Labor, Fuel, ...). The cost is relatively high and the food is concentrated. Once can distribute the food with small plots at a cost. One can also produce quality native food by timber management, controlled burns, etc... Typically this distributes the quantity of quality food over a larger area.
To my way of thinking, traditional food plots are a temporary high intensity way of introducing quality food and are not sustainable in the long run without some external source of funding. As you increase the acreage under production you increase the cost. To me using food plots in a strategic way to supplement an overall management plan and fill gaps, keep the costs down to a level that many folks can sustain, especially if offset by rotating timber sales. Using less intense non-traditional food plots (T&M, No-till, Min-till, weed tolerance, reduced herbicide, permaculture, ...) tip the scales further in the favor of sustainability. Lower input cost, including time, allow of increase acreage and contribute to quality food distribution over a larger area. Better nutrient cycling improves the soils to the "best they can be" for what they are in a long-term way.
Whether increasing the quantity of quality food is done through food plots, native foods, or a combination, if food is the limiting factor for your herd, it comes down to what methods work best in one's specific situation for the long haul.
Thanks,
Jack
