Let's talk carrying capacity

[scrimshaw33]

I got to thinking today (which usually gets me in trouble).

With all of us trying to make more native and non native foods available in the form of shrubs and trees, I'm wondering how much is too much?

If you have enough food it might not matter if you don't have the habitat/cover to support the deer. Also, what about regards to social dynamics of your local deer herd? A group of does can bed together but can two groups of does bed close to each other? How close?

You guys know I like to over do things, but I don't want to over do them to the point that they won't serve a purpose of feeding deer.

Are we planting trees and shrubs for increasing the carrying capacity or to just attract deer with something our neighbors don't have (i.e. I'm pretty sure none of my neighbors are planting elderberry let alone ever heard of elderberry).

[letemgrow]

IMO

Everything should be food, browse, cover or hopefully all 3. If something provides browse and cover for instance, it helps since it hits more than one thing on the checklist.

Take dwarf chinkapins for instance, deer browse them, eat the mast and bed right in them if enough are in a given area. Things like that will allow more deer to use a given area if they have all things needed in one area. Obviously that will not get them through the year so another spot of silky dogwoods may fill the void in winter so to speak.

I just try to manage my farm by sections and put everything I plant into each section so I don't have to worry as much. This way I know the deer do not have to travel far any way they go to have everything that is available on the place.


A pure switch grass stand will be great for bedding, but why not add some native perennial wildflowers/forbes that deer love to eat to increase the reasoning for them to be in that switch? I use that line of thinking to help keep me sane.

Then I let the deer figure it out from there because there is not much else I can do but keep the ratios balanced.

[Geo]

Stop thinking, keep doing.

G

[criggster]

IMO, having too much would be defined as having waste. In other words if I planted ten acres of fall foods and in April the deer ate just seven acres worth during the winter then the other three acres were wasted. I have yet to plant an excess of foods for the local deer herd. I will be planting more than I usually do, but I doubt that my food plots alone will completely carry them through the winter. I have a limited amount of space for food plots and have nearly reached that limit with seven out of fifty acres in food plots.

If you have enough food it might not matter if you don't have the habitat/cover to support the deer.

I would have to disagree with this statement. Deer are by nature browsers and they need that part of the equation for their diet. And, if you don't have cover they will be bedding elsewhere. The one thing I have noticed in my area is the difference in browse pressure before planting food plots versus after.

Before I began planting plots the deer herd was scattered about, but since I now have the best food in town the deer concentrate in a smaller area around me. Makes since, and, after all, that's the way I planned it. But, since the deer have become concentrated the browse pressure on the local vegetation has skyrocketed. So, I am having my land logged to provide both additional browse and cover.

I plant trees, grains, etc. to help make the deer herd healthier and to attract them to my property where I can observe them and harvest them. I am also helping the rabbit population, turkey population, songbirds, and various other wildlife.

[sagittarius]

Originally Posted by scrimshaw33

Are we planting trees and shrubs for increasing the carrying capacity or to just attract deer with something our neighbors don't have (i.e. I'm pretty sure none of my neighbors are planting elderberry let alone ever heard of elderberry).

It really don't matter. If you have improved the native habitat so the deer prefer your property over your neighbors property ... you have done well. You still may need to lower the deer population on your property to maintain some sort of regeneration balance of that prefered diverse native vegitation you worked so hard to establish. If the deer decimate many native local browse species into local extinction, there are either too many deer, or not enough prefered local browse. So the next question is, were those browse species ever there, or did they disappear decades ago from too many deer?

Originally Posted by criggster

Before I began planting plots the deer herd was scattered about, but since I now have the best food in town the deer concentrate in a smaller area around me. Makes since, and, after all, that's the way I planned it. But, since the deer have become concentrated the browse pressure on the local vegetation has skyrocketed.

Yes Yes Yes. That is a double eded sword. This is a common occurance. Deer are browsers, and will browse on prefered native vegitation traveling to and from foodplots 12 months of the year. Foodplots do not eliminate pressure on prefered native vegitation, only the low preference browse ... but location is a large factor. Thus, dispite the presense of high attractive foodplots, deer populations still need to be lowered to preserve the diversity of prefered native browse in the area habitat. JMHO

[scrimshaw33]

I'm not saying they are not worth it, but it just makes you wonder that if you can provide all the food a local desired herd needs in the way of food plots, is it worth planting other trees and shrubs that might not have been there otherwise.

For instance, I already have an oak tree about every 50 yards in my woods which make up a 1/3 of my property, I have planted 100 apple trees, and by next year I will have year round forage in the form of soybeans, clover and annual grains. It just makes you wonder if planting all the "extras" provide any benefit.

According to American whitetail (http://www.northamericanwhitetail.co...2landscaping/), mature hardwoods provide 300 lbs of food/acre while a clearcut provides 1500 lbs of forage/acre, but only 1/2 of the clearcut forage is desirable forage, or 750 lbs. They also state that you cannot permit deer to eat more than 1/2 of the a desirable forage without risking it being decimated, which would leave only 375 lbs of forage available to deer in a clearcut setting, about the same amount of food as a hardwood setting.

One acre of food plots (soybeans, clover, corn) can range in forage production from 1-5 tons/acre. Compare that to forage in a clearcut or hardwoods.

I just think it's worthwhile considering that if you already have hardmast (acorns) and provide some soft mast (apples or other) is planting all these other desirables worth it? Sure it's fun, but I'm not talking about fun I'm talking about what works.

Should we leave clearcuts to habitat and over for the most part and food plots for "food". I agree your acreage should provide food and cover in one and I think corn might be the only crop that can do that, but no one is going to plant all corn on their property either due to cost or b/c a monoculture of anything is bad.

Diversity is key with anything but it would seem to me there's a point where increasing diversity would probably not create any more hunter/deer opportunities. In other words, deer hunter success, whether you define that as harvesting mature deer or deer sightings, probably doesn't get any better after a certain amount of diversity of forage.

I'm just saying that providing apples, corn, soybeans, clover and annual grains (and possibly brassicas) along with whatever naturally is present on your farm (hardmast and softmast in the form of oaks and pokeweed, dogwoods, etc....anything that comes up after giving light to the canopy floor), might be enough to maximize your property without having to go to the effort of planting other forage (screens and bedding shrubs and trees aside).

[brushpile]

The pay off will come. When your property is THE place deer prefer, I think you'll be happy. QMDA is about improving deer habitat, and growing healthly deer, which you are doing a good job of. Keep up the good work!

[smsmith]

I think that sometimes we think too much

Is it absolutely necessary or will it contribute to hunting opportunities? I don't really consider those things most of the time I'm planting/growing stuff.

I just get a kick out of doing it!

[letemgrow]

Originally Posted by scrimshaw33

Diversity is key with anything but it would seem to me there's a point where increasing diversity would probably not create any more hunter/deer opportunities. In other words, deer hunter success, whether you define that as harvesting mature deer or deer sightings, probably doesn't get any better after a certain amount of diversity of forage.

You are right, over a certain amount is not going to increase the deer #'s I doubt.

The real kicker for me is having the healthiest deer possible. I want to see some fat on those suckers when I harvest one so the more quality food the merrier. Only so much of that should be from non-native sources IMO.

Deer also like various items to eat so having some mature mast timber, clearcuts for browse, food plots, soft mast etc only give them more options. I will be done with all 140 acres of my property is hard mast, soft mast, cover and browse. Until then, I know there is more I can do for wildlife other than deer too. Once I am piling food on top of food, that will be enough.

[letemgrow]

Originally Posted by smsmith

Is it absolutely necessary or will it contribute to hunting opportunities? I don't really consider those things most of the time I'm planting/growing stuff.

I just get a kick out of doing it!

Well that too

I highly doubt any of the most sought after food will go to waste by end of winter anyways in my area no matter how much I plant.