Mineral and Corn

Ski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
4,515
Location
Coffee County
I'd never purposely manipulate a forest stand unless it was the for the sole purpose of future economic gain. Having nothing but a stand of oaks sounds awesome on the face because deer love acorns, but the forest wasn't designed to work that way. It's an ecosystem of various life forms that all interact in intricate, complex ways we do not completely understand. A very simple example that everyone can relate to is morel mushrooms. They grow around and under poplars & elms. They do so because of the microbes present in the forest floor, as well as other environmental conditions. They will not grow in an oak stand. What else might you permanently disturb by eliminating everything except for oaks? What understory trees, shrubs, weeds, forbs, worms, insects, fungi, mammals, reptiles, etc. will not exist in your forest anymore because you removed their support system? Better yet, what did all those species contribute that you now don't have? Unless you know the subject well enough that you will not encounter unintended, unforeseen consequences, then wouldn't it wise to not take mother nature's job from her? If cashing in on oak timber in 60yrs is your primary goal then by all means manage it for that purpose. But if wildlife habitat is your goal, I think i'd err to the side of caution.
 

BSK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 1999
Messages
80,883
Location
Nashville, TN
Ski,

You're assuming a heavy cut leaving just smaller oaks will become an oak monoculture. I promise you that rarely (if ever) occurs. Cut elm and elm comes back. Cut poplar, and 3 times as much polar comes back. The hard part is getting oaks to come back, because young oak seedlings are so desired by deer.

Time and again I've seen a forest that is 80% oak cut only to come back 100% poplar. Too many deer and not enough area cut.
 

DoubleRidge

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
9,621
Location
Middle Tennessee
I'd never purposely manipulate a forest stand unless it was the for the sole purpose of future economic gain. Having nothing but a stand of oaks sounds awesome on the face because deer love acorns, but the forest wasn't designed to work that way. It's an ecosystem of various life forms that all interact in intricate, complex ways we do not completely understand. A very simple example that everyone can relate to is morel mushrooms. They grow around and under poplars & elms. They do so because of the microbes present in the forest floor, as well as other environmental conditions. They will not grow in an oak stand. What else might you permanently disturb by eliminating everything except for oaks? What understory trees, shrubs, weeds, forbs, worms, insects, fungi, mammals, reptiles, etc. will not exist in your forest anymore because you removed their support system? Better yet, what did all those species contribute that you now don't have? Unless you know the subject well enough that you will not encounter unintended, unforeseen consequences, then wouldn't it wise to not take mother nature's job from her? If cashing in on oak timber in 60yrs is your primary goal then by all means manage it for that purpose. But if wildlife habitat is your goal, I think i'd err to the side of caution.

No doubt diversity in general should be the goal....We did a timber harvest little less that two years ago....I personally wasn't sure how to approach the project so we hired a Forester and he asked what our goals were.... then developed a plan and while our timber stand improvement project did involve hack-n-squirt of a variety of less desirable species....it would be impossible...on our place anyway...to rid the forest of all trees but oak. (using the method we used anyway).
And the goal wasn't to eliminate everything but oak...but it was a goal to let oak return to where they once flourished.....As for your example of the morels....I totally get what your saying....we commonly find them around sycamore, elm and poplar....but have also found them around cedar and the earlier black morels we find around a variety of trees including red and white oak.....I do believe that we need to take stewardship of the land seriously but I also believe we have great opportunities to improve the habitat in many ways....like eliminating invasive species that were not originally here, creating fawning and nesting ground as well as bedding areas.....and creating food sources where there are none or where there is very little to eat......one example that comes to mind is a park not far from us....giant timber....they never or rarely cut timber or do anything.... massive closed canopy....it's beautiful for humans....but there is very little food or cover for wildlife at ground level..... habitat/land management, when done correctly, can be very rewarding.
 

DoubleRidge

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
9,621
Location
Middle Tennessee
Ski,

You're assuming a heavy cut leaving just smaller oaks will become an oak monoculture. I promise you that rarely (if ever) occurs. Cut elm and elm comes back. Cut poplar, and 3 times as much polar comes back. The hard part is getting oaks to come back, because young oak seedlings are so desired by deer.

Time and again I've seen a forest that is 80% oak cut only to come back 100% poplar. Too many deer and not enough area cut.

We cut one area of poplar that the Forester classified as "old field growth" and BSK mentioned 3x the amount of poplar returning.....I can echo this statement....3x easy... if not more.... honestly it's astonishing how many poplar saplings appear in a very short time.
 

BSK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 1999
Messages
80,883
Location
Nashville, TN
We cut one area of poplar that the Forester classified as "old field growth" and BSK mentioned 3x the amount of poplar returning.....I can echo this statement....3x easy... if not more.... honestly it's astonishing how many poplar saplings appear in a very short time.
The very first timber "cut" I ever did on my own place wasn't a "cut," but the result of ice storm damage. I had a hillside that was 90% white oak topple like dominoes under the weight of the 1994 ice storm. Because of their value, I had a logger come in and clean up the downed timber. Many of the toppled white oaks' stumps were still alive and sprouted like crazy. But because the rest of the property was mature timber, this was the only new regrowth in the area. Now, 27 years later, that area is 100% poplar. Too little area in regrowth for the local deer density (which was NOT high at the time - but high enough).
 

Headhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2000
Messages
6,971
Location
Tennessee
Global warming, climate change, or complete BS as I call it, is for sure what started my disbelief in science. There have been MANY predictions about the "end of the world, oceans flooding, etc." and NONE of them, not ONE has ever came true.
 

BSK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 1999
Messages
80,883
Location
Nashville, TN
Global warming, climate change, or complete BS as I call it, is for sure what started my disbelief in science.
You have to look at who took over the environmental departments at universities. It wasn't scientists, it was activists masquerading as scientists. The "Earth Science" departments at most universities are now total embarrassments.
 

Bone Collector

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
19,602
Location
Murfreesboro, TN
Don't do it. There is no benefit to it, and lots of potential negatives.
Are you saying don't put out salt licks or don't put a bunch of additives in the salt lick?

I put out trophy rocks or salt and that is it. have done it for years. I used to put out corn around it, when I put the salt out the first time, but quit doing that.
 

BSK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 1999
Messages
80,883
Location
Nashville, TN
Are you saying don't put out salt licks or don't put a bunch of additives in the salt lick?

I put out trophy rocks or salt and that is it. have done it for years. I used to put out corn around it, when I put the salt out the first time, but quit doing that.
There is no real biological benefit to providing salt or "minerals." Lots of studies have tried to prove access to mineral licks improves animal performance, but in free-ranging situations, not one study has conclusively proven any benefit.
 

Sasquatch Boogie Outdoors

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
564
Location
East tn.
Very, very good stuff.

I wish I could describe epigenetics in detail, but I cannot. It is an extremely complicated topic and as of yet, not a fully understood process. But in a nutshell, during times of physical/nutritional stress, proteins can become attached to an individuals DNA. As that DNA replicates, it carries the attached protein with it. These proteins can drastically alter the function of the DNA (preventing genes from turning on or off at the correct time). And since these proteins are attached to the DNA, they are heritable, and that's the critical part - they can be passed on to offspring.

Epigenetics was discovered while researching the effects of famine in Scandinavian countries. It seemed to be a strange coincidence that women who had experienced severe nutritional deficiencies during a famine, no matter how much later after the famine was over and how great their health was at the time of pregnancy, produced a much higher percentage of underperforming children (low birth weights, poor health through life), than women who had never experienced a famine. It was found that the periods of famine produced these epigenetic proteins that attached themselves to the women's DNA, and these proteins were passed down to their children, causing poor health and underdevelopment.

A few years back, in a university study (may have been Univ of SD), researchers looked at the white-tailed deer of the Black Hills versus white-tailed deer farther east in the state in the Plains. It was noted deer in the Plains were much larger in body and antler than deer from the Black Hills. Wanting to show these differences were caused just by differences in food quality, deer captured from the Black Hills were moved to a facility in the Plains, and raised side by side with local deer (although the two groups were not allowed to interbreed). The researchers assumed that as soon as the Black Hills deer had been eating the same food sources as the Plains deer, and living in the same environment, the differences between the two groups would vanish. But they didn't. At least not for several years. It took at least 3 years before Black Hills does bred to Black Hills bucks began growing close in size to the local Plain deer (and they never caught up in body size). This is where the idea came about that a does health - long before she becomes pregnant - is such an important factor in producing bucks that can express their full potential at maturity. However, although their observations were correct, their theory on why it took so long for the Black Hills deer to start catching up to the Plains deer was wrong. It wasn't just the condition of doe before pregnancy. It was epigenetics. Due to the lower nutrition and higher stress life of living in the Black Hills, DNA altering proteins were attaching themselves to the Black Hills deer' genetics and that was being passed on to their offspring, lower the offspring's life-long growth potential.

As far as I know, the Miss. State is the only university currently studying the role of epigenetics in white-tailed deer, and their finding some fascinating things.

But epigenetics is probably a major contributing factor into why sudden improvements in herd dynamics and habitat quality often DON'T produce the dramatic improvements in deer performance many landowners expect. It often takes many years - even decades - basically a number of generations of deer, to lose the negative influence of epigenetics on the local population.
After reading BSK I feel like a biologist, but I did stay in a holiday inn Express last night... pal you have educated me immensely. I hope everyone reads this stuff. Thanks!!
 

Monk74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
169
There is no benefit to mineral sites from a biological perspective. Different groups, especially mineral mix sellers, have been try for years to show actual evidence that access to mineral sites by free-ranging deer produces benefits. They have not been able to.

I only used mineral sites (actually salt licks) to get late-summer pictures of deer. Using corn to draw them in front of cameras at that time can be quite dangerous to wildlife.
First I wanna say I like that on here a guy can speak his mind about various things and there's not much passive/ aggressive BS trying to make him feel stupid for his beliefs. So, how many studies of wild deer and the benefits of minerals are out there? I can't find a single one. Not being smart but,let me know. I try to read every university funded study on wildlife I can find. What I've found is ( outside of some sketchy radio collar data) it's impossible to track wild bucks and their potential antler growth year to year on a wildly variable diet. Also bucks have the ability to "bank " nutrients. I know cattle aren't wild animals but , they're fed scientific diets and still farmers know the importance of mineral supplements. They also graze on the same various plants as deer in TN. As for pen raised bucks. Actually they're more crowded and stressed(way more btw)than wild deer during the antler growth season. I agree with the Walmart deer corn thing. But high levels or calcium and phosphorus in mineral sites has to help does, fawns and the bucks you said are worn down from our over population of does as you talked about earlier this late winter. Btw an even mixture of soybean meal, black oil sunflower seeds, stabilized rice bran and cotton seed meal is expensive but the results show. I feed religiously January 10 through September 1. Again it's ok if we disagree just saying what I've saw happen to the deer on my properties.
 

TheLBLman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2002
Messages
37,854
Location
Knoxville-Dover-Union City, TN
Btw an even mixture of soybean meal, black oil sunflower seeds, stabilized rice bran and cotton seed meal is expensive but the results show. I feed religiously January 10 through September 1. Again it's ok if we disagree just saying what I've saw happen to the deer on my properties.
Not saying you're incorrect, but how can you isolate the perceived improvements in the deer on your property to that expensive meal mix?

Also, like you, I can't imagine that some of these things, like mineral licks, aren't providing at least some herd performance enhancement. But like BSK, I've not seen any scientific evidence demonstrating any improvements. There is a lot of marketing & advertising implying they help, but where's the beef?
 

diamond hunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
2,462
Location
Goodlettsville Tennessee USA
BSK.
Im adding 55 acres to my 300 this coming next month and to help me pay for it having 30 acres of the new cut for timber.The place was cut about 1995 and now primarily poplars and some soft maple,yet a decent harvest. I dont mind the poplars but was wondering if you could recommend a species that after the timber harvest this fall I could plant and protect inside this new timber harvest area? My son is 14 and hey,I want him to benefit. I bet you there isnt 25 decent oak trees in that 30 acres.I have tree tubes to protect what you suggest.Also,should I try to keep them together,spaced apart well ect? Should I try to kill competition in a couple years from now? Thanks friend,I always enjoy reading your posts and Im thrilled to have you back.Dont let the duds piss you off again. I love the poplars cause my honeybees love them.
 

BSK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 1999
Messages
80,883
Location
Nashville, TN
First I wanna say I like that on here a guy can speak his mind about various things and there's not much passive/ aggressive BS trying to make him feel stupid for his beliefs. So, how many studies of wild deer and the benefits of minerals are out there? I can't find a single one. Not being smart but,let me know. I try to read every university funded study on wildlife I can find. What I've found is ( outside of some sketchy radio collar data) it's impossible to track wild bucks and their potential antler growth year to year on a wildly variable diet. Also bucks have the ability to "bank " nutrients. I know cattle aren't wild animals but , they're fed scientific diets and still farmers know the importance of mineral supplements. They also graze on the same various plants as deer in TN. As for pen raised bucks. Actually they're more crowded and stressed(way more btw)than wild deer during the antler growth season. I agree with the Walmart deer corn thing. But high levels or calcium and phosphorus in mineral sites has to help does, fawns and the bucks you said are worn down from our over population of does as you talked about earlier this late winter. Btw an even mixture of soybean meal, black oil sunflower seeds, stabilized rice bran and cotton seed meal is expensive but the results show. I feed religiously January 10 through September 1. Again it's ok if we disagree just saying what I've saw happen to the deer on my properties.
Be careful of what "seeing results" mean. In a true scientific experiment, only one factor is changed, not many factors. Too often I see those who are doing many things to aid wildlife (especially deer), latch on to one of the many changes they've made and assume that is the cause of any improvements they are seeing. In reality, it is probably the accumulation of EVERYTHING that is being done, from habitat changes to changes in herd dynamics through selective harvest that are producing improvements.

Yes, penned cattle will display improvements in large supplementations of just about anything, from food quality to minerals. The same is true of deer. Penned deer WILL show improvements in performance with large-scale mineral supplementation. However, wild, free-ranging deer will not. Most of the studies on mineral supplementation have been done by the producers/sellers of minerals in an attempt to bolster the sale of their products. When the results show nothing, those studies don't get published. Several of the Univ in TX and I believe Auburn and Miss State have all conducted mineral supplementation studies of free-ranging deer and they showed no benefit.
 

BSK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 1999
Messages
80,883
Location
Nashville, TN
BSK.
Im adding 55 acres to my 300 this coming next month and to help me pay for it having 30 acres of the new cut for timber.The place was cut about 1995 and now primarily poplars and some soft maple,yet a decent harvest. I dont mind the poplars but was wondering if you could recommend a species that after the timber harvest this fall I could plant and protect inside this new timber harvest area? My son is 14 and hey,I want him to benefit. I bet you there isnt 25 decent oak trees in that 30 acres.I have tree tubes to protect what you suggest.Also,should I try to keep them together,spaced apart well ect? Should I try to kill competition in a couple years from now? Thanks friend,I always enjoy reading your posts and Im thrilled to have you back.Dont let the duds piss you off again. I love the poplars cause my honeybees love them.
The big problem is, that's a big area to try and plant in trees, especially having to use tree tubes. If it were me, I would try to produce small patches of desirable timber. In essence, create small "groves" of acorn-bearing trees where they would be most beneficial. These can be produced through planting seedlings and temporarily fencing those areas off, or better yet, depending on where you are in TN, I believe the western 2/3 of the state is going to see a big white oak acorn crop this year. Just collect acorns and push them into the ground in patches. You'll lose some of those acorns to squirrels and rodents, but you'll probably see adequate germination if you plant enough acorns. Usually, the best regeneration of thinned forests occurs when the logging just happens to coincide with a big acorn year. The falling acorns from younger oaks left standing sprout in great numbers due to the open canopy, and the following year the ground is a carpet of oak seedlings, which is often the only way to overcome deer browse pressure (by producing more seedlings than the deer can eat). Also consider site selection. Oaks in the white family will grow best on north-facing slopes, where soil conditions are wetter and cooler.
 

JCDEERMAN

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
17,482
Location
NASHVILLE, TN
BSK.
Im adding 55 acres to my 300 this coming next month and to help me pay for it having 30 acres of the new cut for timber.The place was cut about 1995 and now primarily poplars and some soft maple,yet a decent harvest. I dont mind the poplars but was wondering if you could recommend a species that after the timber harvest this fall I could plant and protect inside this new timber harvest area? My son is 14 and hey,I want him to benefit. I bet you there isnt 25 decent oak trees in that 30 acres.I have tree tubes to protect what you suggest.Also,should I try to keep them together,spaced apart well ect? Should I try to kill competition in a couple years from now? Thanks friend,I always enjoy reading your posts and Im thrilled to have you back.Dont let the duds piss you off again. I love the poplars cause my honeybees love them.
This fall, I plan on (as much as I can) trying to spray the stumps of the least-desired trees we want there soon after they are cut. You might also consider this for less competition on the trees, seedlings or nuts you plant - also more sunlight hitting the ground in the upcoming years. Just throwing another option out there for combating trees you don't want.
 

DoubleRidge

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
9,621
Location
Middle Tennessee
The big problem is, that's a big area to try and plant in trees, especially having to use tree tubes. If it were me, I would try to produce small patches of desirable timber. In essence, create small "groves" of acorn-bearing trees where they would be most beneficial. These can be produced through planting seedlings and temporarily fencing those areas off, or better yet, depending on where you are in TN, I believe the western 2/3 of the state is going to see a big white oak acorn crop this year. Just collect acorns and push them into the ground in patches. You'll lose some of those acorns to squirrels and rodents, but you'll probably see adequate germination if you plant enough acorns. Usually, the best regeneration of thinned forests occurs when the logging just happens to coincide with a big acorn year. The falling acorns from younger oaks left standing sprout in great numbers due to the open canopy, and the following year the ground is a carpet of oak seedlings, which is often the only way to overcome deer browse pressure (by producing more seedlings than the deer can eat). Also consider site selection. Oaks in the white family will grow best on north-facing slopes, where soil conditions are wetter and cooler.

Great information.... very interesting....thanks for sharing!
 

Monk74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
169
Not saying you're incorrect, but how can you isolate the perceived improvements in the deer on your property to that expensive meal mix?

Also, like you, I can't imagine that some of these things, like mineral licks, aren't providing at least some herd performance enhancement. But like BSK, I've not seen any scientific evidence demonstrating any improvements. There is a lot of marketing & advertising implying they help, but where's the beef?
I don't think there's any way to prove results on free range wild deer. A guy may see no results. But he didn't know that a coyote den with six pups was 300 yards from his mineral site. So the deer, especially does chose to avoid that area most of the summer. An example of my thinking is a 250 acre property I hunt split in half by a road. I only can access one side easily to supplement the deer. On the side I can access. I had a doe fawn on camera with a big gash in her left ear the summer she was born. Over 3 1/2 years I watched her raise 7 fawns to maturity. 5 were doe fawns.A youth hunter killed her this past season.Dressed weight a few hours later was 118 pounds. I've just personally saw higher live weights,less fawn mortality. She's just one example. And I never buy any store bought mixes of any kind. The same things are available at local feed stores for half the price.
 

Latest posts

Top