Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Redmond Minerals on Food Plots

I spread 150 lbs of Redmond conditioner and 50 of Redmond salt on my acre of apple trees and alfalfa/red clover this past year. My goal is to give my orchard all the minerals the trees need, so they are healthy enough to fight off all diseases and insects without having to spray. I used the Redmond stuff to fill general mineral requirements, as I didn't have a soil test yet. I've sent a test off now and will look for the specific minerals that are lacking when I receive the results.

I know most folks are addicted to their NPK fertilizers, but it's my opinion these other minerals will provide better results, assuming you have healthy soil bacteria and fungus. I have legumes growing every year to provide all the free nitrogen I need, and the soil life will make all of that locked up P and K available for my plants. Now it will just be a matter of finding which minerals are lacking, and providing them.
 
MickT said:
The soil may be worse, but there’s way more available forage within the reach of deer during the growing season for ag land deer vs big timber deer. I think your big timber deer need more high quality forage to get the nutrition into the deer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nutrition can be a factor in ag country as well. Deer can go from feast to famine when farmer's harvest. The key in all cases is finding the void and filling it.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Catscratch said:
I disagree in your statement that you should only focus on the low hanging fruit. I agree that age, nutrition, and genetics are huge in determining antler size and should be focused on but they aren't the only things. I attempt to manage native plant nutrition, native plant diversity, plot nutrition, intrusion stresses, and soil health as well. When deer eat plants that are high in nutritional and mineral content they have a better chance at growing large than deer that don't have access to such complete forages. Your assessment that every soil in every part of the country has every mineral (and they're available for plant uptake due to chemistry and microbes) is far fetched. Not sure why you are bringing up mineral supplements as "point source" as the discussion is solely based on improving mineral content in plants, but your assessment of free range livestock (cattle) not benefiting from mineral is completely wrong. There are huge health benefits for cattle to having mineral available at certain times of the yr... namely better health and weight gain. I'm talking free range cattle and not feed-lot cattle. Which once again is not part of the discussion and cattle are completely different animals anyway. Anyway, I think you are arguing for the sake arguing. Which in your words means that you are trying to stimulate discussion.
Click to expand...

When studies show that mineral supplementation benefits free ranging deer herds or necropsy studies show deer are limited by a mineral deficiency, then I'm right on board with ya. Until then, I'll focus my limited resources on the things that are proven to benefit deer herds.

Thanks,

Jack
 
yoderjac said:
When studies show that mineral supplementation benefits free ranging deer herds or necropsy studies show deer are limited by a mineral deficiency, then I'm right on board with ya. Until then, I'll focus my limited resources on the things that are proven to benefit deer herds.

Thanks,

Jack
Click to expand...

Would you post a link or two (of reputable studies) that concluded minerals were never the limiting factor in antler size on free ranging deer no matter the soil type? I've looked and didn't find any but my googling skills might be lacking.

I did find a study where they thought deer were getting sick from mineral deficiencies from spending too much time on alfalfa fields and neglecting native forage. This particular study appears to be unfinished (or terminated) but the hypothesis was that free ranging animals were neglecting diversity and becoming sick due to either infestation or mineral deficiencies. They took the study far enough to know there were no pathogens. Interesting to think that a plot could be "too good" and actually limit an animal's health by eating too high of a percentage of it.

While looking for data to support your conclusion I found this study on elk and antler anomalies. It's an old study and probably outdated but still a good read if someone was interested in effects of poor dietary mineral and protein content in native forages (due to local soil conditions).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19961856_Antler_anomalies_in_tule_elk
 
Catscratch said:
Would you post a link or two (of reputable studies) that concluded minerals were never the limiting factor in antler size on free ranging deer no matter the soil type? I've looked and didn't find any but my googling skills might be lacking.

I did find a study where they thought deer were getting sick from mineral deficiencies from spending too much time on alfalfa fields and neglecting native forage. This particular study appears to be unfinished (or terminated) but the hypothesis was that free ranging animals were neglecting diversity and becoming sick due to either infestation or mineral deficiencies. They took the study far enough to know there were no pathogens. Interesting to think that a plot could be "too good" and actually limit an animal's health by eating too high of a percentage of it.

While looking for data to support your conclusion I found this study on elk and antler anomalies. It's an old study and probably outdated but still a good read if someone was interested in effects of poor dietary mineral and protein content in native forages (due to local soil conditions).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19961856_Antler_anomalies_in_tule_elk
Click to expand...
You don't try to prove a negative. The mineral supplement industry is a big one and would benefit greatly from any study showing a benefit for free ranging deer, yet all of the studies they tout are on livestock and penned deer.

The bottom line is this: There is lots of science to support our core QDM activities (letting young bucks walk, keeping herd size in balance with the habitat, providing quality food during times when it is absent, ...) We have limited resources to apply to deer management. I'll apply those limited resources where I know they will pay off. Could mineral supplements help free ranging deer? It is possible, and I'm open to it, but given the science to date, I'm doubtful.

There are lots of gimmicks marketed to deer hunters. We often decide to do things because we "think" it will help or because someone wrote a testimonial about how they used some magic mineral supplement and now they see big bucks. If you want to buy into to this, feel free. I'm not going to criticize you for it. There are plenty of examples out there where someone outside the mainstream of science touts some new wonderful approach that is counter to the science. While 98+% of the time they are just quacks, on rare occasions they turn out to be profits and eventually the science backs them up. Could this be the case with mineral supplements for free ranging deer? Possible but very unlikely.

By the way, you are also right about food sources being too attractive. A deer's digestive system changes with the seasons. They have found dead deer with bellies full of corn from supplemental feeding in the winter that died of starvation because they could not digest it.

Thanks,

Jack
 
So you don't have links to support your claims, and you didn't read the one I posted...
yoderjac said:
Catscratch said:
Would you post a link or two (of reputable studies) that concluded minerals were never the limiting factor in antler size on free ranging deer no matter the soil type? I've looked and didn't find any but my googling skills might be lacking.

I did find a study where they thought deer were getting sick from mineral deficiencies from spending too much time on alfalfa fields and neglecting native forage. This particular study appears to be unfinished (or terminated) but the hypothesis was that free ranging animals were neglecting diversity and becoming sick due to either infestation or mineral deficiencies. They took the study far enough to know there were no pathogens. Interesting to think that a plot could be "too good" and actually limit an animal's health by eating too high of a percentage of it.

While looking for data to support your conclusion I found this study on elk and antler anomalies. It's an old study and probably outdated but still a good read if someone was interested in effects of poor dietary mineral and protein content in native forages (due to local soil conditions).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19961856_Antler_anomalies_in_tule_elk
Click to expand...
You don't try to prove a negative. The mineral supplement industry is a big one and would benefit greatly from any study showing a benefit for free ranging deer, yet all of the studies they tout are on livestock and penned deer.

The bottom line is this: There is lots of science to support our core QDM activities (letting young bucks walk, keeping herd size in balance with the habitat, providing quality food during times when it is absent, ...) We have limited resources to apply to deer management. I'll apply those limited resources where I know they will pay off. Could mineral supplements help free ranging deer? It is possible, and I'm open to it, but given the science to date, I'm doubtful.

There are lots of gimmicks marketed to deer hunters. We often decide to do things because we "think" it will help or because someone wrote a testimonial about how they used some magic mineral supplement and now they see big bucks. If you want to buy into to this, feel free. I'm not going to criticize you for it. There are plenty of examples out there where someone outside the mainstream of science touts some new wonderful approach that is counter to the science. While 98+% of the time they are just quacks, on rare occasions they turn out to be profits and eventually the science backs them up. Could this be the case with mineral supplements for free ranging deer? Possible but very unlikely.

By the way, you are also right about food sources being too attractive. A deer's digestive system changes with the seasons. They have found dead deer with bellies full of corn from supplemental feeding in the winter that died of starvation because they could not digest it.

Thanks,

Jack
Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
There are plenty of research articles and links out there that address supplemental mineral feeding for deer; one just needs only to look to European countries and or New Zealand let alone those US based studies that do exist. Red deer and elk markets in foreign countries are well established and they have done a fair amount of related nutritional research over the last couple of decades.
I read the link to the 1970's based study and I guess, 40 years ago with the knowledge they had,... yes, if your neighbors cattle are being born hairless with deformed spines and you also have elk transferred from a zoo, released, then re-captured, transferred, and newly released again - with these highly stressed animals you may want to - while containment feeding those "wild" animals, provide them with some supplemental mineral feed. Especially if you believe there is a Cu deficiency and they present in poor health within the first year or so of their re-release. The mortality rate in the study seemed to point to the fact that they may have had other problems in just keeping the herd alive beyond trying to keep antlers from being grossly deformed - which from the images, as bad as they look also likely show other more significant issues. The elk in that specific release area are now doing much better, well not really: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ild_Tule_Elk_at_Point_Reyes_National_Seashore

There are actual newer articles that lend some support to supplemental trace mineral use in captive deer and weight gain - but from what I have read that is info gleaned from deer, while containment fed, being push-fed a protein rich feed with an excess of nutrients - (more than they would ever find in the wild) with additional micro and macro minerals fed in salt form. Other studies about calcium uptake from the skeletal system in the spring being aided by additional amounts of calcium do exist but your going to find far less in the way of feeding studies of trace minerals, land spread, being fed to deer indirectly through plant uptake of forage in non captive truly wild deer herds. There just is not a financially feasible reason to do that kind of research and nobody is going to pay to be proven wrong. They simple do not need to because a profitable market exists without that kind of expenditure.
It is a heated topic amongst hunters because of the passion to engineer the perfect deer utopia on our lands and the amount of cash we are freely willing to shell out to achieve that goal. People will argue both sides and those that spend the money are very passionate about it. If one wants to feed mineral go ahead, there is more than enough factual info out there to come to the conclusion that it is not overly beneficial but there also exits enough of a research void to say that maybe it does help.
Point source feeding is known to be a source of disease spread and concentrating deer in small food plots is very much a kin to point source feeding simply due to increased deer contact with each other in tighter area. With CWD in Wisconsin I know it is an area of concern among wildlife managers.
Its all a good topic to discuss and can spin off in many directions.

I am definitely in favor of low cost efforts, I doubt they hurt anything and might have a positive benefit - I personally balance that view with a sense of knowing they dont and judge the value accordingly - I have a major dislike for the industry that packages mineral and spins its witch doctor con job on people - low cost supplemental mineral for cattle repackaged and price jacked with grandiose promises of monster racks and big ole pig bodies.

Old age and genetics makes big bucks and..... only,... old age and genetics... focusing on one or both doesn't cost anything
 
Everyone is free to spend their money as they choose. Do what you think best. The few time I’m here Yoder and I butt heads, but I have to agree with him on this one. You many want to argue over the meaning of a word or two and if that brings you satisfaction, have at it.

The things about research is you can’t read all of the studies. That makes it difficult to know which ones are worth considering and which ones have dubious value.

And then there’s the leap from the research findings to what we might be able to infer. We often get it wrong.

But, again, in the context of the discussion - and without many of the seemingly disconnected elaborations, Jack - you did a nice job of staying inside the lines, but it sounds like you won’t win the battle!
 
And it seems like the conversation had become confused. It started out with applying trace mineral salt to the soil and then to soil trace mineral adequacy to direct feed mineral supplementation. Or that’s my read, not that I’ve spent a lot of time digesting every word of every post. Without reference to any research article, it seems to me a bad idea to apply salt to productive soil. It may not hurt but once you have soil salinity you own it. But it does sound like a great way to sell mineralized salt!

If your crops are deficient on trace minerals only tissue testing will tell you. Soil testing is a close second. If plant trace mineral supplementation is necessary there are fertilizers fir the purpose. Seek them out if you think application necessary.

Finally, feeding trace mineral I leave to your discretion. If you think it necessary, think of it like insurance, you might need it but you hope you don’t. And ask if the expense is worth the return. To each, best of luck!
 
You guys are right about several things; Jack drives me nuts when he posts arguments that contradict the thread, is negative towards things he knows nothing about, and refuses to support his ideas with data. I butt heads with him a lot! 99% of the time I move on and don't say a word. He quoted me on this thread to say my stance was wrong and that there is science (dead tissue studies) to prove it. My stance all along is that plants with a full spectrum of minerals available through the soil are going to be better for deer than plants lacking in something. I searched for his mentioned studies and when I didn't find them I asked him to. I posted a study that I found and admitted it was old and not great. I don't know why Yoder brought up point source feeding of mineral as it's not the topic at hand. It's one of the things he does that derails threads into something the OP never intended. I still have no fight in the point source feeding as I agree that it has been shown many times to be a sales gimmick and there is little to no proof it does anything for deer. And it "could" contribute to spread of disease (but I'm not convinced it would be worse than deer licking each other to say hello or to frequent a communal scrape). Once again, point source feeding mineral is not the topic at hand and has nothing to do with my original statement on this thread.
You guys are also right that Jack has handled this well. Once he quoted me and said the science does not support my claim then I went on the attack (because this isn't the first time) to have him support his claim. I'll bow out now and let things settle.
 
The conversation has never been confused. I have maintained the same stance from the beginning and even tried to clarify it with subsequent posts. Yoder does his thing and inserts his own version so that he has something to argue about. For the record, my soil tests show that my pH and most of my macro molecules are within reasonable ranges. Some of my micro's are somewhat low so I'm dealing with them separately. Never have I just dumped large amounts of general mixes on my ground hoping it covers what's needed. But, if research shows that Redmond mineral mix is the right ratio of what you need than I'm not the person to contradict you.
 
Catscratch said:
The conversation has never been confused. I have maintained the same stance from the beginning and even tried to clarify it with subsequent posts. Yoder does his thing and inserts his own version so that he has something to argue about. For the record, my soil tests show that my pH and most of my macro molecules are within reasonable ranges. Some of my micro's are somewhat low so I'm dealing with them separately. Never have I just dumped large amounts of general mixes on my ground hoping it covers what's needed. But, if research shows that Redmond mineral mix is the right ratio of what you need than I'm not the person to contradict you.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I never meant YOUR conversation was confused, but that the thread had split into at least 3 different channels. Best leave it at that...
 
As I tried to say before, and perhaps I wasn't clear. Spend your time and money where you think it will do the most good. I posted no links to studies that show free ranging deer don't benefit from mineral supplementation because there are none. I never claimed there were. That is just my opinion based on the total body of evidence we have. Similarly there are no peer reviewed articles that show mineral supplements benefit free ranging deer herds. With no hard science either way, it comes down to opinion.

My logic is simple. Every industry ensures research that supports the use of their product is funded, published, and advertised. Them mineral supplement industry in the deer hunting community has been pushing their products for years based on livestock and penned deer studies along with those wonderful testimonials. Game department regularly do necropsy studies in areas where deer herds are in poor condition. These are not peer reviewed research studies, they are simply necropsy studies. They are usually done in conjunction with habitat evaluation. If there are any out there that point to mineral deficiency, I have yet to see one. They generally point to deer numbers that exceed the carrying capacity.

Given that we have good evidence of how appropriate mineral application can improve plant nutrition, and good evidence of how providing the appropriate quality foods during gaps when quality food is unavailable, I'll spend my money where I have good evidence that it benefits my deer herd. When it comes down to opinion, folks of good conscience can certainly disagree.

I'm not sure where all the "head-butting" talk comes in, and I try to be careful to stick to making arguments, not attacking others. If folks have a different opinion that I do, that is fine with me. Make your arguments. Folks reading the tread will see all sides and can make their own choices.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Well - for $10.50 I bought a bag. I applied 50 lbs in area of clover plots (3 different plots) where I could get as much of a side-by-side as I could. I am told that it will take some time to see any results but that I should see far more use of the treated areas vs the non. I will be placing cams to capture any video evidence come spring and will monitor visually as well as I intend on doing a forage sample and soil samples to see if I notice any differences.

I don't expect to draw every deer in the county....in fact I may not see any more deer at all. I don't expect to see any real gains in the deer themselves. My intent is to try to get these needed minerals into the deer in a more natural means vs a mineral station (like I do now). If the data and or deer show me it makes a difference I will continue.....maybe into even other planting areas like my annual plots. But a trial for $10.50 I couldn't pass it up. I would think this could easily be used for mast producing trees and shrubs as well as browse plants.....just like some do with lime and other fertilizers......
 
j-bird said:
Well - for $10.50 I bought a bag. I applied 50 lbs in area of clover plots (3 different plots) where I could get as much of a side-by-side as I could. I am told that it will take some time to see any results but that I should see far more use of the treated areas vs the non. I will be placing cams to capture any video evidence come spring and will monitor visually as well as I intend on doing a forage sample and soil samples to see if I notice any differences.

I don't expect to draw every deer in the county....in fact I may not see any more deer at all. I don't expect to see any real gains in the deer themselves. My intent is to try to get these needed minerals into the deer in a more natural means vs a mineral station (like I do now). If the data and or deer show me it makes a difference I will continue.....maybe into even other planting areas like my annual plots. But a trial for $10.50 I couldn't pass it up. I would think this could easily be used for mast producing trees and shrubs as well as browse plants.....just like some do with lime and other fertilizers......
Click to expand...

I've got to say that if one decides to use mineral supplements, this is the way to do it. It avoids the point source attractant disease issues. When deer feed in a field, even a small one, they naturally distribute themselves with a certain spacing. I've often watched more dominant deer admonish less dominate deer when they got too close. That is not to say that deer don't have face to face contact naturally with grooming and other activities, but by distributing it we avoid elevating that face to face contact.

And just to show that I'm more than willing to change my mind on mineral supplementation if the data changes, at one time I maintained several mineral licks which were point source attractants. My primary purpose was for buck inventory. Over time, as I dug into the subject, I changed my mind and decided not to use mineral supplements. I'm open to changing my mind again if more science emerges, but as things stand now, I'll spend my money elsewhere.

You know me, I love to experiment with things on a small scale. While these rarely yield much in the way of better performance, they are a great tool to help me get a better understanding of the complexities of a subject. Sometimes the goal is simply satisfying personal curiosity. Let us know how it goes and what you feel you've learned and things progress.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Spreading salt on a plot seems like a well executed survival strategy for an industry quickly getting shut down by the CWD experts. 100lbs/ac would raise my sodium base saturation to 3.5%. God help the guys who do this and don't have drainage.

Micros are easy enough, I'd put actual needed micros on. You can get boron at the grocery store for $20/ac. You can get copper off amazon for $20/ac. You can get all the sulfur you need in gypsum, and that won't cost $30/ac.

I like the Redmond blocks a lot, but I don't want it in my plot soil. Most of the micros in that salt aren't enough to hit a minimum anyhow. If you got what you actually needed, you'd have killed your soil with the salt. None of this matters whatsoever if a guy doesn't even know what he needs to begin with. If you don't have a complete soil test, I wouldn't try fixing a problem you're not even sure you have.
 
Aren't most commercial NPK fertilizers salts anyway?
 
You don’t need some educated idiot to tell you deer don’t need minerals. Let the deer tell you, they crave it for a reason, their body needs it.
 
If low consentrations of salt kill grass how come some of the greenest grass grows along the sides of the highway after the state treats the roads all winter?
 
homerj said:
Aren't most commercial NPK fertilizers salts anyway?
Click to expand...
Fertilizers can add to a soils salinity...and that's not a good thing. So, you manage the source of the macro nutrients to minimize the residual salinity - none of which any sane knowledge agronomist, soil scientist, farmer, will say is a good thing - soil salinity, that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top