TreeDaddy
5 year old buck +
I had my first protein feeder go "untouched" for two years before any deer figured it out
I now have four and fill them ~once/month from Jan through september
bill
Protein Supplementation article
- Thread starter Baker
- Start date
I had my first protein feeder go "untouched" for two years before any deer figured it out
I now have four and fill them ~once/month from Jan through september
bill
I started this thread to show the value of increasing the nutritional plane on antler growth where a herd of deer can be managed . I think you ask a different though very relevant question that pertains to a much larger audience. Far more folks are managing habitat hoping to influence deer movement on to their property than those that have the scale to effectively manage a herd. I think any land ownership is a blessing and privilege creating countless opportunities.
Absolutely you can influence deer movement to your property as well as turkeys, migratory birds and waterfowl and whatever may be endemic to your area. Could be a simple as a corn feeder to as complex as year round food plots. I have a corn feeder about 500 yds from my home and greatly enjoy watching the doe group that has taken residence around it. If you like feeding deer, no reason not to put a protein feeder out simply for the enjoyment of contribution. Food plots become a function of terrain, equipment and budget. Numerous options from throw and mow to full blown ag practices.all which are very enjoyable for some and add value to the habitat as well as the psyche. Tractor time is peak therapy for me.
Timber mgt. can provide income as well as enhancing habitat. Creating a good road system allows better access as well a making it easier to enjoy property .
Hard to be specific about what can be done on your 80 acre midwestern property not knowing anything about it but for sure it is better to have 80 acres with the opportunities therein vs not having. So I repeat what I said earlier and that is cherish the opportunity , do whatever brings you joy, and enjoy the process. This forum is a great place to get specific ideas if you want to go deeper .
john volkman
5 year old buck +
Many on here know that i am a rep for Cuddeback, One of the other manufacturers in my book is a large supplemental feed/mineral company that sponsors one of, if not the largest, most well known, whitetail series of shows on outdoor TV. They as well as another equally well known tv personality on the outdoor channel(who is isnt sponsored by my manufacturer ) both started using the products quite a few years ago, to my knowledge neither of them had taken a whitetail that exceeded 200" before they started using it. Since implementation they have taken multiple deer that exceeded 200" including 2 of them in one year by one of them and 2 in consecutive years by 2 others. My non scientific observation is that it obviously can make a big difference , the scale of which and at what level is highly variable in each situation.
cavey
5 year old buck +
I think deer have proven themselves to be very much like cattle especially if contained and or protected in a manner that allows them to a reach peak age so to speak whether it be by management or by fate. Deer that reside on marginal ground should obviously benefit from supplemental feeding as will deer on more lush properties though more often than not on the latter's, natural browse during the plenty of the growing season would/should suffice for nearly all of their nutritional needs short of local nutrient or vitamin deficiencies. Now making it easier to get that protein with less stress, effort and predation risk well that cant hurt.
Where these properties shine is their size, or coupled with adjoining like properties with relatively the same practices. Im going to bet the biggest factor which is often left out is the fact that from the time prior to the present when the fore mentioned properties switched to more intensive site feedings - is and maybe not the right word but "simply" that the effort across the board to manage for bigger deer was amped up. An already good genetic pool was allowed to exist in an ever more conducive for deer survival environment.
If your going to the effort to provide that many feeding stations I doubt you are cutting corners anywhere else and that bigger picture of genetics likely comes more and more into play. It is a somewhat un educated stance but I would conclude that feeding is maybe not directly getting them larger racks as much as it is affording in a somewhat more challenging food environment to ensure a larger surviving population of those more desirable unculled deer to do what deer naturally do which is to pass on the surviving genetics thus reaching their full long term herd potentials. Better healthier deer breeding up the lines each year. If the deer where nutritionally stressed to the point that they were not growing sizable antlers I would guess that winter kill loses prior to feeding would often have been horrible. I really cant argue much of this with much validity its more of just a gut feeling. People that spend money and lots of it want results and statistics can be skewed. Maybe its just a synergistic effect of multiple efforts running on the same track as supplemental feeding?
I think the full potential of supplemental feeding can only be reached in a niche world and for 95% of us it doesnt fully apply - does it hurt? No.. only in the pocket book, can we learn from others doing it, you bet... could I be wrong -- oh ya would I love to be in a place where I could try? Dam straight.
I think the coolest part of this site is all the different practices and information that gets passed around and that it is freely shared for discussion without to many feelings getting hurt. I do not agree with it all but I loved reading about it.
Where these properties shine is their size, or coupled with adjoining like properties with relatively the same practices. Im going to bet the biggest factor which is often left out is the fact that from the time prior to the present when the fore mentioned properties switched to more intensive site feedings - is and maybe not the right word but "simply" that the effort across the board to manage for bigger deer was amped up. An already good genetic pool was allowed to exist in an ever more conducive for deer survival environment.
If your going to the effort to provide that many feeding stations I doubt you are cutting corners anywhere else and that bigger picture of genetics likely comes more and more into play. It is a somewhat un educated stance but I would conclude that feeding is maybe not directly getting them larger racks as much as it is affording in a somewhat more challenging food environment to ensure a larger surviving population of those more desirable unculled deer to do what deer naturally do which is to pass on the surviving genetics thus reaching their full long term herd potentials. Better healthier deer breeding up the lines each year. If the deer where nutritionally stressed to the point that they were not growing sizable antlers I would guess that winter kill loses prior to feeding would often have been horrible. I really cant argue much of this with much validity its more of just a gut feeling. People that spend money and lots of it want results and statistics can be skewed. Maybe its just a synergistic effect of multiple efforts running on the same track as supplemental feeding?
I think the full potential of supplemental feeding can only be reached in a niche world and for 95% of us it doesnt fully apply - does it hurt? No.. only in the pocket book, can we learn from others doing it, you bet... could I be wrong -- oh ya would I love to be in a place where I could try? Dam straight.
I think the coolest part of this site is all the different practices and information that gets passed around and that it is freely shared for discussion without to many feelings getting hurt. I do not agree with it all but I loved reading about it.
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
My guess is that there are few folks supplemental feeding that do so anywhere close to the scale and intensity of the study. Many are simply baiting and calling it supplemental feeding. The study area was arid and where providing nutrition through other means is sketchy at best. Most folks in most of the country would go broke long before they were able to demonstrate any measurable improvement. Manipulating native habitat can be a much lower cost (and even positive cash flow in some cases) method for providing nutrition for most of the country. Your 95% guess is probably even low.
Having said that, I completely agree. Discussing topics like this can help us learn. Cross-domain knowledge often spurs new ideas. I really enjoy discussing solid studies like this rather than just bantering with those testimonials "Since I started using this product, method, or technique, I shot all these huge deer!".
Thanks,
Jack
bwoods11
5 year old buck +
Maybe a guy should feed at all times, other than the deer season (illegal in MN and IA)...If I had a huge budget I'd pour corn/soybean/pellets/chicken-n-biscuit or whatever if it helps body weights and racks? I just know some people think it helps, others are not high on it.
S.T.Fanatic
5 year old buck +
If I was to feed it would be from 1/1 (our season closes 12/31) up until about 5/1. This is the time period our deer have the least amount of high quality food available.
cavey
5 year old buck +
Yoder I agree that the 95% is likely low it was just a starting point for the conversation lol I had to come up with number and I further agree that there is a big difference between supplemental feeding and baiting. Managing a population of deer in a manner that is truly supplemental feeding is more a kin to managing a beef herd on poor range land than a having a few raised barrel feeders within sight of a gun stand.
Good genetics and old age make big deer I firmly believe that and in general only that... once you get to the point where the property has both... supplemental feeding may enhance the probability of healthier offspring, increase the likely hood of survival for another year presumably to be bigger yet, concentrate deer in more huntable locations, there are numerous reasons why it could be beneficial. I believe it is a tool and a valuable one if you can afford it. I think its a great way to condition deer to your presence helping to increase their tolerance levels.
But, Without good genetics and old age any additional feeding is pointless other than just being nice to the wildlife. The balance point of when it becomes a beneficial tool and not just an act is the real question.
I would assume that for deer pushing the known limits of antler size marginal improvements in nutrients would be important. Arid desert like lands would benefit from water holes as much as supplemental feeding especially if the land owner is helping to boost the deer population above what the land would normally hold. I would imagine at the same time more feeding stations went in so to did watering locations.
What makes sense on 100,000 plus acres isnt always really feasible on a 100. I agree with yoder most of us would benefit more from habitat improvement projects and those like crp eqip wip which all can be very cash beneficial.
My concern is always that too many of us small guys buy into the hypes that get pitched... learn from everything you come across but balance it with a reality check. Most importantly - like Baker says practice the art of getting joy out of your land --whats good for you is often good for the land. I think it is a sign of landownership maturity to know the limits of what you can do while still striving to dream on the possibilities - but know that it take hard work and time. Supplemental feeding is not a quick fix to shooting monster deer every year for the bulk of us. Good discussion made me think about getting some more stuff done.
Good genetics and old age make big deer I firmly believe that and in general only that... once you get to the point where the property has both... supplemental feeding may enhance the probability of healthier offspring, increase the likely hood of survival for another year presumably to be bigger yet, concentrate deer in more huntable locations, there are numerous reasons why it could be beneficial. I believe it is a tool and a valuable one if you can afford it. I think its a great way to condition deer to your presence helping to increase their tolerance levels.
But, Without good genetics and old age any additional feeding is pointless other than just being nice to the wildlife. The balance point of when it becomes a beneficial tool and not just an act is the real question.
I would assume that for deer pushing the known limits of antler size marginal improvements in nutrients would be important. Arid desert like lands would benefit from water holes as much as supplemental feeding especially if the land owner is helping to boost the deer population above what the land would normally hold. I would imagine at the same time more feeding stations went in so to did watering locations.
What makes sense on 100,000 plus acres isnt always really feasible on a 100. I agree with yoder most of us would benefit more from habitat improvement projects and those like crp eqip wip which all can be very cash beneficial.
My concern is always that too many of us small guys buy into the hypes that get pitched... learn from everything you come across but balance it with a reality check. Most importantly - like Baker says practice the art of getting joy out of your land --whats good for you is often good for the land. I think it is a sign of landownership maturity to know the limits of what you can do while still striving to dream on the possibilities - but know that it take hard work and time. Supplemental feeding is not a quick fix to shooting monster deer every year for the bulk of us. Good discussion made me think about getting some more stuff done.
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
Spot on! To my way of thinking this is the difference between QDM and Trophy Management. I'm interested in sustainability. I intentionally avoid things like supplemental feeding. I'm even reducing my food plot intensity over time. When we first started, we were in a pine desert. Little food and little cover. Deer were so in need of quality food that when I would mow a clover plot, they would be feeding in the other end and reluctantly head back to the pines when I closed the distance to about 50 yards. By the time I was back at the other end of the plot they were back out.
We first established a food plot program as sort of an emergency room operation. Over time, with good timber management, deer are becoming less dependent on our food plots and that is a good thing. I've recently been focused on improving soil quality and nutrient cycling by reducing tillage. I'm also starting with permaculture for more long-term sustainability. Rather than using supplemental feeding to take the deer herd beyond what the land can support, I'm trying to focus on manipulating the habitat so the land can support the herd better. I will always be limited by my underlying dirt as most are. For me, antler size is only one metric used to estimate herd quality. Quality for me is good numbers, good body weight, good sex ratio, and good age structure. Trophy management seems to focus on antler size as the primary metric and the others are just supporting. I'm even trying to broaden from QDM toward QWM (Quality Wildlife Management). While there are often trade-offs one needs to make (and I'll lean toward deer and turkey), if I have two techniques that benefit deer the same, I'll opt for the one that benefits the broadest range of wildlife species.
The question I ask myself is "What happens when we stop?". Whether we get too old, or unexpected financial constraints hold us back, or whatever, if we stop doing what we are doing what will happen? Will the deer herd crash? Will it have a big negative impact on vegetation and small invertebrates? Or, will the land slowly over many years revert to lower BCC. Things like timber management, improving OM, managing native vegetation with fire, and similar things take many, many years to unwind. Most of us are not professional deer managers paid to manage deer. Many of us are looking to manage for those who will come next.
I realize that the risk of disease transmission are largely related to how one does supplemental feeding, but with CWD on the rise, more and more states and localities are banning feeding deer outright. There are many more reasons for most of us NOT to do supplemental feeding than to do it. Regardless of that, I'm glad Baker posted the research. While many may just scan this thread, those who go and look at the research itself or listen to the podcast, will realize the significant limitations of the technique and the limited scope to which it can be extrapolated.
Thanks,
Jack
I think a lot of people generally associate a supplemental feeding program with improving antler quality - but it could well be a more useful tool for those with low deer densities. There are some that I know who provide supplemental feed in an effort to improve doe health and survivability and improve fawn health and survivability. In addition, some research indicates does and at least some of their doe fawns are more likely to stay in and around a feeding location - with usually contributes to your deer density.
bwoods11
5 year old buck +
What I have found is food plots and some supplemental feeding will get certain deer to become familiar with your small farm 40-100 acres. We had an 80 in MN with only 20 acres of cover. We planted food plots and did some extra winter feeding. There was always deer around, some lived their most of the year. We found sheds, we had many sightings, passed some 2.5 year old bucks. The bigger bucks were always susceptible to the neighboring hunting pressure, seemed to die about Nov 5-8 every year by neighboring gun hunters--which was intense.
It was one of those farms where if I controlled more acres, or if the gun season was not early November, it would have been lights out. All the food/feeding in the world, had little impact as my orange clad neighbors picked off the traveling bucks during the rut in MN.
It was one of those farms where if I controlled more acres, or if the gun season was not early November, it would have been lights out. All the food/feeding in the world, had little impact as my orange clad neighbors picked off the traveling bucks during the rut in MN.
Well, we not only survived Barry but in fact by only getting 2 1/2" rain in late July it was probably an asset. Go tell the weather channel.
Good conversation all. I'll add a couple more thoughts based on experience and belief starting with this...I don't believe there are many if any areas of the country where deer are on 100% peak nutrition 365 days a year for generations.We can grow plots, manage habitat, keep the herd below carrying capacity etc. but until nutrition is 100% 365 days year the deer are compromised. So the question becomes does that matter and if so what options are available? If it doesn't matter then case closed, move on. However some folks are interested in maximizing the health of deer as reflected in every metric. ex; average weight both males and females, recruitment, longevity, positive and improving trends in all the above and yes antler size. This is where a supplemental feeding program can make a difference.
The cons:
It is expensive!
It can be labor intensive
With out scale to impact a material number of deer little value is realized.
With out scale your feeding deer that likely could be miles away come hunting season
If the bucks are getting shot at 3 or younger its a total waste
It generally takes at least 3 years to start seeing any benefit
Unless all the other aspects of habitat and herd mgt are in place the benefits of supplemental feeding are hard if not impossible to realize.
Feeder density has to be such that you reach all the deer to realize the full benefits
The pros:
If everything else is in place the supplemental protein feeding will grow healthier bigger deer !
Its kinda fun to have feeders and the joy of knowing you are doing something good for the resource
Supplementation does take nutrition to the 100% and can fill in all nutritional gaps as well as help deer thru annual stress periods
The gains are cumulative and continue to accrue...perhaps forever
To some degree feeding benefits numerous non target species if that is of interest. Turkeys ,all sorts of birds, coons, possums etc. { This can be a two edge sword }
Everything I do has an eye to sustainability which is one reason I keep the herd well below carrying capacity. Even if drastically I wasn't available to participate with the farm, everything would be ok for a while. Then the timber would canopy over. The plots would resort back to timber. Food would gradually diminish as would the quality of the overall habitat. It would start to look about like it did when I acquired the farm. But right now, thanks to all the inputs its pretty jazzy and a blast to hang out in.
Yoder asks a good question:what happens when we stop or die? In my case my children will either sell the farm or turn it into a subdivision. Such is life. But for now...yipee!!! I'm gonna do everything I can to make it the dream come true I have had since I was a kid!!! And that includes supplementally feeding as much as I can.
Good conversation all. I'll add a couple more thoughts based on experience and belief starting with this...I don't believe there are many if any areas of the country where deer are on 100% peak nutrition 365 days a year for generations.We can grow plots, manage habitat, keep the herd below carrying capacity etc. but until nutrition is 100% 365 days year the deer are compromised. So the question becomes does that matter and if so what options are available? If it doesn't matter then case closed, move on. However some folks are interested in maximizing the health of deer as reflected in every metric. ex; average weight both males and females, recruitment, longevity, positive and improving trends in all the above and yes antler size. This is where a supplemental feeding program can make a difference.
The cons:
It is expensive!
It can be labor intensive
With out scale to impact a material number of deer little value is realized.
With out scale your feeding deer that likely could be miles away come hunting season
If the bucks are getting shot at 3 or younger its a total waste
It generally takes at least 3 years to start seeing any benefit
Unless all the other aspects of habitat and herd mgt are in place the benefits of supplemental feeding are hard if not impossible to realize.
Feeder density has to be such that you reach all the deer to realize the full benefits
The pros:
If everything else is in place the supplemental protein feeding will grow healthier bigger deer !
Its kinda fun to have feeders and the joy of knowing you are doing something good for the resource
Supplementation does take nutrition to the 100% and can fill in all nutritional gaps as well as help deer thru annual stress periods
The gains are cumulative and continue to accrue...perhaps forever
To some degree feeding benefits numerous non target species if that is of interest. Turkeys ,all sorts of birds, coons, possums etc. { This can be a two edge sword }
Everything I do has an eye to sustainability which is one reason I keep the herd well below carrying capacity. Even if drastically I wasn't available to participate with the farm, everything would be ok for a while. Then the timber would canopy over. The plots would resort back to timber. Food would gradually diminish as would the quality of the overall habitat. It would start to look about like it did when I acquired the farm. But right now, thanks to all the inputs its pretty jazzy and a blast to hang out in.
Yoder asks a good question:what happens when we stop or die? In my case my children will either sell the farm or turn it into a subdivision. Such is life. But for now...yipee!!! I'm gonna do everything I can to make it the dream come true I have had since I was a kid!!! And that includes supplementally feeding as much as I can.
