Mineral Sites for Whitetail Deer - Backinthepines.com

[Back in the Pines]

I realize many of you here are public land hunters, but I am sure at least some of you also hunt on private property as well. If you do, this is for you. If not, I think you can still gain something from reading this article.

There's great debate over the topic of mineral stations and sites for whitetail deer today. Here are my thoughts on the topic, some scientific data, and a few other uses for mineral sites you might find useful.



Do you use minerals? If so, have you seen any results? If not... is there a specific reason you choose not to?


http://www.backinthepines.com/mineral-s ... velopment/


-Robert

[Muy Grande]

I usually put out some trophy rocks every year. I figure it may help, may not, but can't hurt. I mainly try to place them in easy to get to spots for pictures. Places I should be able to make as little intrusion as possible like a field edge.

[ Post made via Windows Smartphone ]

[Back in the Pines]

I posted this at Bowhunting.com and the mineral companies joined the discussion early. :)

I'm hoping someone here will chime in also.

[JoeRE]

I agree it is a widely discussed topic (because it would be pretty awesome if we could grow bigger antlers) but from my reading on the matter the consensus is not exactly unclear (excluding those with clear bias). In free range settings minerals have been found to have no significant effect on antler development or animal health. You need to keep an animal in a pen and control its diet for supplements to have such effects.

I do run mineral licks - or I should say salt licks - because its a great way, perhaps the best way, to monitor deer in an area. However, I go back and forth on if I should continue to do so given that I am potentially aiding the spread of diseases by congregating the deer all in one spot...

[dirt nap giver]

I use mineral sites (powder and licks) on private land large tracts of timber settings for inventory purposes, but never hunt over them.
I use licks on stumps and it works great till 2 weeks before the season, then everything is nocturnal.
As far as powder goes, the jury is still out.....
Have used 2 different brands with little success for inventory on mature deer. Will be trying another brand this year.

I typically use cheap peanut butter for the site introduction the first year, then minerals after that.

Salt licks don't work nearly as well as mineral licks where I live.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

[Back in the Pines]

I use mineral sites (powder and licks) on private land large tracts of timber settings for inventory purposes, but never hunt over them.
I use licks on stumps and it works great till 2 weeks before the season, then everything is nocturnal.
As far as powder goes, the jury is still out.....
Have used 2 different brands with little success for inventory on mature deer. Will be trying another brand this year.

I typically use cheap peanut butter for the site introduction the first year, then minerals after that.

Salt licks don't work nearly as well as mineral licks where I live.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

We live in the same area it looks like - southwest Michigan. Hunt more North West Michigan though.

[Back in the Pines]

I agree it is a widely discussed topic (because it would be pretty awesome if we could grow bigger antlers) but from my reading on the matter the consensus is not exactly unclear (excluding those with clear bias). In free range settings minerals have been found to have no significant effect on antler development or animal health. You need to keep an animal in a pen and control its diet for supplements to have such effects.

I do run mineral licks - or I should say salt licks - because its a great way, perhaps the best way, to monitor deer in an area. However, I go back and forth on if I should continue to do so given that I am potentially aiding the spread of diseases by congregating the deer all in one spot...

Do you have any cites to recent studies about the free range deer having little benefits to mineral supplementation?
I am not able to find any recent studies supporting that notion. From an unbiased point of view - I don't see how proper supplementation of needed vitamins, minerals, and proteins on a consistent basis wouldn't help the deer.

[May-39]

I have permission and have hunted one decent sized private parcel since the mid 90's with several others.
I use lucky buck or a very similar mix put together at a mill locally as opposed to the mostly salt blocks typically available. Lucky buck and home brew have a lot more selenium and calcium than other commercial products..

I noticed a pronounced delay..In that I mean the first year (Started in February) I noticed more spike/horned yearlings during season but nothing that made me think it really took hold on the bucks..But the second year there was a remarkable improvement the typical 2.5 y.o. 6-8 points had much more mass like miniature Ontario bucks..Since I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in a country mile and am the only one in the section that will pass a 15" 8 point, I don't have enough mature bucks to compare results.

I did get several pics of multiple bucks at the same time one particular site near known bedding..Despite white flash,,, bucks hammered it.

I doubt you would observe lots (more) big bucks in areas where deer have large home ranges and wander a lot. But you are still helping deer and there is no shame in that,,only time spent helping deer and being outside.
Every beef or dairy farm I've known has supplemented with some kind of mineral..Farmers tend to be pretty thrifty so I draw my conclusions based on that.

[JoeRE]

Here is what I have read. A good discussion of mineral & salt licks was on the beast awhile ago. http://thehuntingbeast.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13203&hilit=Salt+lick Check out the link to the AT discussion that has some pretty good information on the usefulness of mineral licks. Another good discussion can be found here on the QDMA forums http://www.qdma.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-47912.html Obviously these are just discussions, but do a good job of explaining deer physiology in layman's terms. Just to be clear, we are discussing mineral supplementation using mineral/salt licks, NOT general nutrient supplementation such as feeds and food plots which have been found to have a beneficial effect on deer in certain circumstances (not so much in the nutrient rich agricultural midwest...).

Deer hit licks because during the spring and summer months they operate at a sodium deficiency, and as a result crave salt to make up for it. Here is an article that indicates it is salt the deer are after http://fwf.ag.utk.edu/personnel/charper/pdfs/Mineral%20article--TN%20Academy%20of%20Science.pdf.

Its probably impossible to "prove" that supplementing various minerals, primarily calcium and phosphorus, in free range deer has no effect on antler size because that is not a realistically testable hypothesis but what is very telling is that no studies have demonstrated a correlation, which would be easier to test. I am sure the mineral supplement industry would love to have some empirical evidence of their products resulting in larger antlers but there is absolutely none, despite many attempts I am sure. There are many research centers across the country studying deer heard health, nutrition and diet supplementation.

Here is an article on feeding deer that touches on mineral supplementation. Read Page 8 that reviews literature on mineral supplementation http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/docs/bulletins/bulletin1.pdf

This book "Whitetail Racks" also contains a good literature review on the topic of mineral supplements. The author does speculate - as many articles seem to - that mineral supplements may benefit antler development but at the same time states states there is no evidence mineral supplements effect antler size of deer. (Page 55, Chapter 7) http://books.google.com/books?id=AAWrGwQ9GOkC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Mineral+supplement+antler+size+deer+study&source=bl&ots=C4t0gJ2oBK&sig=q65OciE3xYwjdOi4_Hc_xotaw7E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-vlcU-69GOaA2AW_2IHgDQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Mineral%20supplement%20antler%20size%20deer%20study&f=false

Here is another article on whitetail deer biology that reviews literature on the topic and indicates the most recent evidence shows no link between mineral licks and antler size. (Page 27-28) http://www.cahabariver.net/book/deerbook.pdf

In summary, you will find many articles suggesting it "may" help the use of mineral licks but no studies validating their importance. Many will say "there is conflicting information" on the topic or something along those lines but in truth none of the empirical evidence shows a link between free range deer antler size and mineral supplementation. I think they just say that because so many people want to believe it. General nutrition and genetic traits have been linked to antler size, but not mineral supplementation.

I completely agree that the theory of supplying extra calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, etc to a buck while he is growing antlers is attractive, but there is just no empirical evidence to support it. If anyone wants to add mineral to a salt lick by all means go do it (where legal), but don't be misled by what the deer are really after. They are after the salt or other attractants/flavors that are sometimes added not the "beneficial" minerals (other than the salt).

Anyway, I enjoy the articles you write so don't take this stuff the wrong way, I just want everyone to better understand the topic as I think there is a lot of miss-information out there. I bet 75% of hunters think mineral licks can grow bigger racks.

[C&T Archery]

The great Antler/Mineral debate. I'm no scientist by any means and whether or not it increases antler size or not. Obviously genetics plays a factor as well, but this isn't about genetics. What I do understand, is once the deer come out of winter, no matter the extreme, they have to rebuild their bodies, in Northern Wisconsin where I hunt, during spring deer sightings, you wonder how much longer they could have survived, as trail cam pictures show a bunch of hide and bones and not much meat. If it takes the deer longer to recover from the winter, then the longer it will take before they start growing antlers. The deer first instinct is survival, not antler growth. For the more Southern Midwest states like Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Indiana and Ohio, I believe they have a longer growing season for crops and antlers. A deer with proper body nutrition will be able to put more into antler growth. IMO only.