# homemade mineral licks & Dicalcium phosphate



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Just got my ingredients for my homemade mineral lick. Just like recent years past, I got the 50lbs. stock/mixing salt, 100lbs. trace mineral (salt), and 50lbs. Dicalcium phosphate. The total on all was right at $50, with the 50lb. bag of Dicalcium phosphate coming in at about $30.

My thought is that I should get it out now, as this is the time that most bucks have or are shedding, and their new antlers are beginning to grow. My question is this.

How much does the Dicalcium phosphate actually help antler growth? I know in theory since the antlers are comprised of such a high % of Calcium and phosphorus, then supplementing with Dicalc. phosphate should help quite a bit, right??

What do you think?


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Interesting read here. This sight is very informative.

http://www.whitetailstewards.com/articlesonsite/deerbiology/antlergrowthandphysiology.htm


----------



## non-pro-archer (Nov 26, 2008)

It makes sense to me but im not a biologist


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

Scrape why not save yourself alot of time and $$$ and just go to your local feed store or TSC and buy the 50lb. generic mineral blocks that only cost $5.00? Over the years I have tried every type of rock,block, homemade recipe, lick etc. and nothing works any better than the 50 lb. generic blocks/ bags.
And since mineral supplements do not benefit deer in any way other than providing them with a source of salt there is no need to waste money buying a commercial mineral supplement with a huge buck on the package or time and $$$ running all over town shopping for ingredients for the newest, bestest homemade recipe to hit the net. Pike


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Cudorun said:


> Scrape why not save yourself alot of time and $$$ and just go to your local feed store or TSC and buy the 50lb. generic mineral blocks that only cost $5.00? Over the years I have tried every type of rock,block, homemade recipe, lick etc. and nothing works any better than the 50 lb. generic blocks/ bags.
> *And since mineral supplements do not benefit deer in any way other than providing them with a source of salt *there is no need to waste money buying a commercial mineral supplement with a huge buck on the package or time and $$$ running all over town shopping for ingredients for the newest, bestest homemade recipe to hit the net. Pike


interesting..............can you back that up?


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

Scrape sure can!! I graduated from PSU. I took part in research on this very same subject, PSU as well as many of Universities have done countless studies over the last 60 years on mineral supplements and not one study has shown any positive results.
Now PSU can invent, and then successfully inplant the very first artificial heart in a living creature (a cow) but we could not produce a mineral supplement that benefitted the whitetail deer in any way (including their antlers) other than providing them with a source of salt.
The reason for this a deer's digestive system cannot process the minerals in supplements then deposit them in their skeletal frame to be used at a much later date to produce fawns and antlers.

Here is an article by QDMA.'s leading biologist Brian Murphy, If anyone would write an article that supported using mineral supplements it would be him since his employer (QDMA) generates alot of advertising $$$$
from companies that produce mineral supplements on their TV show and their Magazine.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""A classic study on the mineral needs of deer was conducted at Penn State University in the 1950s. In this study, researchers did detect a difference in yearling buck antler development between supplemented and unsupplemented groups. However, these herds were fed a nutritionally deficient diet below what most whitetails would have access to in the wild. Furthermore, when the same deer were examined the following year as 2.5 year olds, no differences were detected between the two groups.

In a similar study conducted at Auburn University, researchers tried to detect differences in body and antler size between an unsupplemented and supplemented group. This study differed from the Penn State study in that both herds were fed a nutritionally complete diet. In addition, one group was provided a commercial mineral supplement. Over a four year period the researchers were unable to detect any differences between the two deer herds.

Without question deer need minerals, and they will readily use mineral licks. But why do they use these licks and why is their use restricted primarily to the spring and summer? Many hunters believe that it is simply because bucks need the minerals for antler growth and does for raising fawns during these months. However, several studies have shown that while deer readily use mineral licks high in salt, they rarely, if ever, use pure mineral supplements. If deer were lacking minerals, why wouldn't they use the pure mineral supplement even if salt wasn't present? No one can say for sure, but it's probably because most minerals by themselves are bitter.
Could the use of salt/mineral mixes simply be due to an increased need for salt? According to research, yes. During the spring and summer, deer operate at a sodium deficiency due to the high potassium and water content of the forage. This interferes with efficient sodium conversion in the body and increases the need for sodium. This makes deer actively seek out concentrated sources of sodium such as natural or man?made licks. Almost all soils more than 25/50 miles from a seacoast are low in sodium. Therefore, in these areas, salt may be just as necessary as calcium and phosphorus to whitetails during the spring and summer."""""""""""""""""""""'""""""""""""""""""""



Here is what CJ. Winand said in an article on this subject, who by the way is not only a well respected biologist but the editor of Bowhunter mag.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""Over the last several decades, biologists at Universities across the country have researched the effects mineral supplementation has on a bucks' rack. In most cases, they put deer in two pens. In one pen, the deer were feed their regular diet. In the other, the deer ate a mineral in addition to their regular diet. After a few years in most studies, researchers did not see a noticeable difference. Many biologists bring up the research every time a hunter brings up minerals. C.J. Winand, a biologist from Maryland, believes that minerals are hocus pocus. "All of the data available today says that mineral supplementation doesn't have a lasting impact on antler size. Research is being done regularly and until I see a study that shows that minerals help deer grow larger racks, I will continue to believe what I believe," Winand explained."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

I have using mineral sites for 20 years now when Deer Cocaine came out, And trust me I tried everything over the years and havent found anything that works either, I have never noticed one bit of difference in antler size. ( and it wasnt for a lack of trying or spending $$$$. And actually When I stopped by the local feed store to replenish some of my sites last spring, they were out of the mineral blocks so I tried plain old salt blocks (for the first time ever)in those sites and the deer hit them just as much as they did when I used mineral blocks etc. in them.
Here are pics of most of my current mineral sites on my property from the 2009/2010 season, some have been there for 10 years and some I


----------



## sethjamto (Jun 29, 2008)

I've used this same mineral lick recipe for the past 2 years and plan on going back to straight salt blocks. If I want to supplement with something, I'll toss some corn around it! ;-)


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

thanks for the input Cudorun! Thats pretty good data to back it up. Probably about as close to 100% as you could get without cloning whitetail bucks and then controlling their diet with only the addition of the supplement to one buck while none for the other. I haven't used the Di-calc. yet, so I may just return it for a refund. Thanks.


----------



## Shedstomper (Oct 10, 2007)

Nothing like someone with years of research to butt in and ruin a perfectly good argument. Thanks Cudo. Great information. I figured the commercial blocks were just that and I think you showed the proof. I guess I will keep my $20/block in my pocket and keep using my Southern States salt blocks at 50# for $5. Cudos to you Cudorun!


----------



## Camel (Mar 19, 2006)

Now theres an eyeopener!!Guess I'll be savin some money this year by not buyin what I was planning on buyin.

I have a question about salt.Can a deer get too much salt or do they only take so much in?

I usually take just plain ol rock salt and dig a hole mix it in with the soil and they take to it.plus use the salt blocks and deer blocks.they have an apple flavor but the bears like to roll them all over the place once they find them.


----------



## MNmike (Dec 27, 2003)

*so*

Does the Di-cal mix help the doe's milk supply or not?


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

MNmike said:


> Does the Di-cal mix help the doe's milk supply or not?


thats the primary reason that they feed it to cattle, but as far as deer, I don't know.


----------



## Rich-VA (Dec 19, 2009)

scrapejuice said:


> interesting..............can you back that up?


I think he backed that up very well, one of the most informative and useful responses I've seen on here.


----------



## carramrod6 (Aug 8, 2009)

Wow did that just happen, no one on here does that. People usually just spout out their opinions without any proof, this is a good change of pace. Very good post.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## KID VICIOUS (Jan 30, 2010)

Informative thread. I get the $5 blocks also...a few apples helps draw em in too. :darkbeer:


----------



## BigDaddy1975 (Dec 4, 2008)

Being a biologist myself...the benefits of mineral sites are the overall health of the herd.

Lack of minerals (primarily salt) in a whitetails diet is a limiting factor in nutrient (from forage) uptake.

So if you have a property in the south where the soil is sandy (loamy stuff leeches salt at a slower rate) and you find a way to keep the salt around(salt blocks) and you have never supplemented with minerals before you should see an increase in the overall health of your herd which will produce better racks.

I would suggest that you place the blocks/ sites on well used trails in between their food source and water.


----------



## rut (Sep 1, 2002)

Outstanding response.


----------



## HoytHunter4 (Jan 17, 2007)

Great response.. BUT now what am I supposed to do with the 25lb of Di-cal I have left from this mix I made last year??


----------



## dhayse32 (Jul 19, 2006)

Awesome thread guys! 

I also make the 200lbs mixture and I usually mix 2 buckets of Lucky Buck in there as well just to add that extra smell that I don't get from just the homemade blend. I have had OUTSTANDING luck with this mixture and I will fill up a camera card in 5 days during the summer. I try to keep the mix off of the ground as much as possible so it is less soil to remove before season gets here (Indiana makes you try to remove the tainted soil so many days before season). 

As far as antler growth, I don't seem to notice much of a difference. A good diet year round is the main key to solid antler growth, and protein of course. I rely on my plots to help me with the growth on my land, the licks are just a treat!


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

So I guess the biggest question here is "Can a buck utilize the minerals taken in from a mineral lick to help its body and/or rack growth"? or are they in a form or compound in which the animal cannot transfer into its bloodstream, and rather just urinates or deficates it out??

As a biology major and chemistry minor I understand the points made earlier. However, there is simply no way to determine with any certainty that it doesn't help. Unless you can control ALL other variables. The ability of antler growth has been directly linked to annual rainfall. In years when rainfall is below normal. Plants don't take up the minerals from the soil into the leaves or other parts that deer browse/feed on as well, and vice versa when the rainfall is above normal. With that said the evidence provided above by Cudorun is pretty good. But if the deer is able to uptake and absorb the nutrients into its bloodstream, I can't see how it cannot utilize them if it is deficient in any of them. But thats just me thinking out loud.

any thoughts on this??


----------



## alexander (May 4, 2009)

rut said:


> Outstanding response.


dito


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

Thanks Guys! Camel it is possible for a deer to eat too much salt and it could cause negative affects to things like antler growth. But I have never (no matter what supplement I was using) got pics of a particular deer that frequented my mineral sites enough for this to be possible ( also even if mineral supplements did benefit deer I never had a buck visit my mineral sites enough to gain anything.) For example, If you called your doctor and had him find you the best vitamins money could buy ( no matter how much the cost) If you took those vitamins once every 5 days etc. you wouldnt see any benefits either.
The reason deer start hitting mineral sites in the spring and pretty much stop around Oct. 1st. is because they need sodium to maintain cellular osmotic balance during this time period of the year. On a cellular level in the body, sodium and potassium balance with each other, potassium intra-cellular and sodium extra-cellular. If sodium is at low levels in the diet and potassium is at high levels, deer are attracted to sodium in order to maintain the potassium/sodium balance. Lush, green forage is often high in potassium and nearly void of sodium. This is why deer are attracted to salt (sodium) primarily in the spring and summer and early fall months. Pike


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

scrapejuice said:


> So I guess the biggest question here is "Can a buck utilize the minerals taken in from a mineral lick to help its body and/or rack growth"? or are they in a form or compound in which the animal cannot transfer into its bloodstream, and rather just urinates or deficates it out??
> 
> As a biology major and chemistry minor I understand the points made earlier. However, there is simply no way to determine with any certainty that it doesn't help. Unless you can control ALL other variables. The ability of antler growth has been directly linked to annual rainfall. In years when rainfall is below normal. Plants don't take up the minerals from the soil into the leaves or other parts that deer browse/feed on as well, and vice versa when the rainfall is above normal. With that said the evidence provided above by Cudorun is pretty good. But if the deer is able to uptake and absorb the nutrients into its bloodstream, I can't see how it cannot utilize them if it is deficient in any of them. But thats just me thinking out loud.
> 
> any thoughts on this??


Scrape let me ask you this, have you ever had a buck that used your mineral supplements that you honestly feel that your supplements benefitted its antler growth in anyway? If so please post each and every pic of this particular buck that you got of it using your licks etc. from March thru the end of the antler growing period and I will be able to prove to you that your supplements did nothing for that particular deer other than providing it with a source of salt. There is no shame in feeling the way you do!! When I was your age I was determined to come up with a supplement that would benefit deer, I was also determined to marry a Victoria's Secret model and harvest a 200 inch buck. Aleast I still have a chance at harvesting a 200 inch buck!!

Also PSU, Auburn, Texas Tech. Miss. State and other top notched schools have controlled the variables many, many times and never once came up with any positive results.
Infact the only institution that claims they have is the Whitetail Institute. Like I mentioned before, If PSU can invent, produce then successfully inplant an artificial heart in a cow (and them much later a Human) we can surely do a proper scientific study on mineral supplements and the affects they have on the whitetail deer. Pike


----------



## Camel (Mar 19, 2006)

Cudorun said:


> Thanks Guys! Camel it is possible for a deer to eat too much salt and it could cause negative affects to things like antler growth. But I have never (no matter what supplement I was using) got pics of a particular deer that frequented my mineral sites enough for this to be possible ( also even if mineral supplements did benefit deer I never had a buck visit my mineral sites enough to gain anything.) For example, If you called your doctor and had him find you the best vitamins money could buy ( no matter how much the cost) If you took those vitamins once every 5 days etc. you wouldnt see any benefits either.
> The reason deer start hitting mineral sites in the spring and pretty much stop around Oct. 1st. is because they need sodium to maintain cellular osmotic balance during this time period of the year. On a cellular level in the body, sodium and potassium balance with each other, potassium intra-cellular and sodium extra-cellular. If sodium is at low levels in the diet and potassium is at high levels, deer are attracted to sodium in order to maintain the potassium/sodium balance. Lush, green forage is often high in potassium and nearly void of sodium. This is why deer are attracted to salt (sodium) primarily in the spring and summer and early fall months. Pike


Thank you Cudorun.There is this big new product in canada called Rack Stacker and they have food plot seed and minerals.They claim the minerals will make a bucks rack grow large and help does and fawns etc.we were all gonna try it but I think I'l stay with salt and blocks for the spring and summer.still gonna put a plot or two in though.


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Cudorun said:


> Scrape let me ask you this, have you ever had a buck that used your mineral supplements that you honestly feel that your supplements benefitted its antler growth in anyway? If so please post each and every pic of this particular buck that you got of it using your licks etc. from March thru the end of the antler growing period and *I will be able to prove to you that your supplements did nothing for that particular deer other than providing it with a source of salt.* There is no shame in feeling the way you do!! *When I was your age* I was determined to come up with a supplement that would benefit deer, I was also determined to marry a Victoria's Secret model and harvest a 200 inch buck. Aleast I still have a chance at harvesting a 200 inch buck!!
> 
> Also PSU, Auburn, Texas Tech. Miss. State and other top notched schools have controlled the variables many, many times and never once came up with any positive results.
> Infact the only institution that claims they have is the Whitetail Institute. Like I mentioned before, If PSU can invent, produce then successfully inplant an artificial heart in a cow (and them much later a Human) we can surely do a proper scientific study on mineral supplements and the affects they have on the whitetail deer. Pike


Just out of curiousity, how exactly would you PROVE that?

When you were my age..............................by seeing your picture in another thread, I'm not sure you have ever BEEN my age. (If your older than me, thats a compliment!)


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

Camel said:


> Thank you Cudorun.There is this big new product in canada called Rack Stacker and they have food plot seed and minerals.They claim the minerals will make a bucks rack grow large and help does and fawns etc.we were all gonna try it but I think I'l stay with salt and blocks for the spring and summer.still gonna put a plot or two in though.


Camel, Thats my entire reason for posting on this thread!!
There is no shame in trying to do something to improve the health of the herd!!
Whether it works or not. But why not put that $$$ and time into some thing that actually does help the herd, habitat and other species that share the habitat, like food plots, fringe cuttings, planting tree's etc. Pike


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

scrapejuice said:


> Just out of curiousity, how exactly would you PROVE that?
> 
> When you were my age..............................by seeing your picture in another thread, I'm not sure you have ever BEEN my age. (If your older than me, thats a compliment!)


Scrape I apologize if I offended you and assumed from this quote:
"""""" As a Biology major and a chemistry minor""""" that you were younger than me. Pike


----------



## Camel (Mar 19, 2006)

well you definatly saved me some money and a couple of my buddies.here are some prices of the minerals.$12.99 / 5lbs. $42.99 / 20lbs. $93.99 / 50lbs.
two different minleral types,Blaze and Glory.They also have a Mineral Fountain for $30/10.lbs.you take a bucket with small holes in the botton and cut off a tree about 6-8 feet and attach the bucket to the top and fill with mineral.then when it rain it trickles down the tree to the ground.Like I said you saved us some cash to go towards the plots or some other hunting items.thanks


----------



## BCFrye_Kansas (Mar 5, 2007)

Pretty interesting stuff. Keep it coming.

I had a wildlife biologist take a look at this mix (I mix in one part dried molasses too), he had me mix another half part calcium carbonate in. I haven't seen any immediate benefit(only been doing it one year), but I'm hoping it helps in the long term. Incidentally, the price of di-cal in Kansas right now is 17$, and the calcium carbonate is coming in at 5$. For that money, worth throwing it out there.


----------



## ONEiiSHOTiiDROP (Oct 18, 2007)

wow guys I'm learning so much! you guys should get your other PSU and Biology major friends to join AT so we can all learn a thing or two


----------



## Shedstomper (Oct 10, 2007)

Now I am not a biologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once, but from everything I have seen, read and been told, the major benefit from any type of mineral/ salt block will be more in overal deer health, and not transmitted into direct antler growth. It may indirectly influence it, but you aren't going to make the area sprout 200" bucks all of the sudden. And as near as I can tell you can spend $50 on the highly advertised "Rack'em up" supplements of $5 on a 50# salt block and the deer herd will see the same results. My experience with the high dollar blocks with molasses and other things added is that if they get damp, they mold and the deer don't like it much. Most all of the nutrient and minerals deer use for antler and bone growth is derived from their diet, hence the highly fertile and mineral rich areas of the mid west and other similar farming areas are going to naturally produce forage that is rich in nutrients and minerals. I guess what I am getting at is in my opinion, and I am sure I will be corrected if I am way off base, is that if you are looking to do something to vastly improve deer health and antler growth, you are much better off to put in a high protien food plot. The entire deer herd will be better for it. Save your money on the mineral blocks. Again, just my 2 cents.


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Cudorun said:


> Scrape I apologize if I offended you and assumed from this quote:
> """""" As a Biology major and a chemistry minor""""" that you were younger than me. Pike


No offense taken, and I figured thats how you drew that conclusion.

As for the subject at hand, I would have to agree that the bucks would somehow have to consume and process enough of a supplemented mineral that it was already lacking in, in order for it to benefit in anyway. Not sure that would even be possible under normal "wild" conditions. I guess mineral licks that are "spiked" with high concentrations of macro and micro minerals are really just an "insurance" for animals that are perhaps running a deficit of a certain mineral. I (along with others here on AT), have found that the deer will not consume the minerals by itself, but only when mixed with high concentrations of salt do they tend to consume it. So with that said, the additional minerals (calcium, phosphate, zinc, etc...) are not intentionally sought after by the deer, but are consumed by accident when they consume the salt. With all that said, the theory behind this whole thing is pretty good, but I would tend to agree, that perhaps getting deer to consume enough of these minerals frequently enough to make a difference might be the biggest problem with the idea. As with many (water soluble) vitamins, once optimum levels are reached, the body just gets rid of the surplus in urine. Not sure if the body could maintain or sustain high levels of consumed minerals for very long for body functions. If the body could enter the later part of antler development with a surplus of calcium, then it may not need to borrow calcium from other bones in the body. (see below)

Referenced from White-tailed deer antler growth and physiology 
By Matt Ross, Whitetail Stewards, Inc.

_Mineral requirements for antler growth 
Mineral requirements for antler growth exceed those of normal skeletal growth and maintenance (studies have shown that deer are constantly undergoing skeleton rebuilding). In some species, antler requirements for minerals may be 3 times as high as that required to maintain the skeleton. Mineral demand for antler growth is satisfied from both the diet and from bone resorption. 

Where do deer get the calcium and phosphorus needed for growing antlers? 
Diet provides the greatest proportion of calcium and phosphorus for antler growth and mineralization. However, antler growth will never exceed genetic potential, even if a deer consumes these elements above optimum levels. During times of peak antler growth, antler demand for minerals forces the thyroid gland to release calcitonin; this hormone allows the deer to "steal" minerals from its internal bone structure. This process is known as "physiological" or "temporary" osteoporosis. Bones such as the ribs and shoulder blades contribute the most to this temporary mineral deficiency, and they may lose as much as 40% of their calcium content while antlers are hardening. However, by September, deer can fully replace the minerals borrowed from their skeleton. 

Antler composition and physiology 
Composition of growing (soft) antlers in velvet (Spring/Summer):

Velvet antlers are High in water and Low in dry matter: 

20% dry matter & minerals 

80% crude protein 

20% ash (22% calcium and 11% phosphorus) 

80% organic material (water, etc.) 



Composition of hard & polished antlers (Fall/Winter): 

Hard antlers are Low in water and High in dry matter: 

60% dry matter & minerals

40-45% crude protein 

54-60% ash (25-40% calcium and 19% phosphorus) 

40% organic material (water, etc.)_

So with all that, it appears the best way to enhance antler development would be to increase overall protein uptake, Right??


----------



## mike (Aug 20, 2002)

what if you are able to get the deer to eat the mineral 2-3 times a day every day all year by putting it in other feed that they eat as well???


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

PSU, Texas Tech, Auburn, Miss. State and many other universities fed their test subjects mineral supplements every day for years and never got any positive results.


----------



## Ohio-Buck (Mar 25, 2010)

Cudorun said:


> I have using mineral sites for 20 years now when Deer Cocaine came out, And trust me I tried everything over the years and havent found anything that works either, I have never noticed one bit of difference in antler size. ( and it wasnt for a lack of trying or spending $$$$. And actually When I stopped by the local feed store to replenish some of my sites last spring, they were out of the mineral blocks so I tried plain old salt blocks (for the first time ever)in those sites and the deer hit them just as much as they did when I used mineral blocks etc. in them.
> Here are pics of most of my current mineral sites on my property from the 2009/2010 season, some have been there for 10 years and some I


So if i had an option, which would be better...? The brown mineral block or the white salt block?


----------



## hardball15 (Jan 6, 2007)

dhayse32 said:


> Awesome thread guys!
> 
> I also make the 200lbs mixture and I usually mix 2 buckets of Lucky Buck in there as well just to add that extra smell that I don't get from just the homemade blend. I have had OUTSTANDING luck with this mixture and I will fill up a camera card in 5 days during the summer. I try to keep the mix off of the ground as much as possible so it is less soil to remove before season gets here (Indiana makes you try to remove the tainted soil so many days before season).
> 
> As far as antler growth, I don't seem to notice much of a difference. A good diet year round is the main key to solid antler growth, and protein of course. I rely on my plots to help me with the growth on my land, the licks are just a treat!



I add molasses for smell. They eat it up. I put it on a stump last year and as you click through all my cam photos, its like animation as you can see the stump disappearing to nothing! Ate the whole thing!


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

Ohio_Buck said:


> So if i had an option, which would be better...? The brown mineral block or the white salt block?


OH. buck, I dont think it matters, deer seem to hit either one just as much. 
But with that said, my most used site by far in 2009 is the one pictured below, which has just a plain old salt block in it.Which if you click on this linkhttp://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v294/jeffpike/2009%20Trail%20Cam%20Pics/?start=0 for my 2009 trail cam album you can clearly see which of my sites the most bucks hit during the course of the spring,summer and fall, start on page 16 and work your way forward.
( I forgot to post a pic of this site when I posted pics of all my sites.)
By the way, all the pics are from SE. OH. Pike


----------



## Hunter4Ever (Apr 7, 2006)

*Ok.....*

So Cudorun, are you saying that the deer cannot absorb the calcium and phosphorus in the form it exists in the mineral mix? In other words the bio-availability is near zero? Or are you saying the additonal minerals just don't affect growth? Sorry if I missed this in your earlier posts.The deer obviously have to get calcium and phosphorus in their diet so apparently this comes from their normal diet where the minerals exist in a form they can utilize. Would planting food plots rich in protein and minerals (calcium/phosphorus) allow the deer to reach closer to their genetic potential in any given year. Are their any studies on this? Great thread!


----------



## Browtine22 (Jan 1, 2007)

Great information and I thank you guys for it. I was surprised for sure. Anyone have a link to one of the University studies ?


----------



## eyebrowcounter (Mar 15, 2009)

Cudorun, you are the man. Thanks for the great info on this money sucking subject. It hurt buying that stuff every year along with runnin plots. If you ever get back to statecollege I'll buy you one of :darkbeer:


----------



## PAbigbear (Sep 13, 2007)

I've been told that some mineral blocks are on the verge of having too much copper in them because they are created for cattle. Apparently too much copper will kill a whitetail. Can anyone confirm the amount of copper that a whitetail must take in to have any negative effects?

About 10 years ago we acquired a 55 gal. drum of pretzel salt from a pretzel factory. This guy loved it!


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

PAbigbear said:


> I've been told that some mineral blocks are on the verge of having too much copper in them because they are created for cattle. Apparently too much copper will kill a whitetail. Can anyone confirm the amount of copper that a whitetail must take in to have any negative effects?
> 
> About 10 years ago we acquired a 55 gal. drum of pretzel salt from a pretzel factory. This guy loved it!


I would think that if they (the deer) are unable to get enough to benefit from the "good" minerals in mineral block or the calcium and phosphate in Dicalc/phos., then I just can't see how they could get enough of other minerals to harm them. Just a thought


----------



## gjs4 (Jan 10, 2006)

great artilc eon the qdma forum by kroll; basically says a trace min block is about your best bet.....wild deer have many more limiting factors than pen deer in terms of antler growth


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

eyebrowcounter said:


> Cudorun, you are the man. Thanks for the great info on this money sucking subject. It hurt buying that stuff every year along with runnin plots. If you ever get back to statecollege I'll buy you one of :darkbeer:


I will be up this fall and take you up on it!! WE ARE!!! :darkbeerike


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

gjs4 said:


> great artilc eon the qdma forum by kroll; basically says a trace min block is about your best bet.....wild deer have many more limiting factors than pen deer in terms of antler growth


gjs4, Have you personally ever seen any results to your bucks antlers as a result of your mineral supplements? Thanks, Pike


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

PAbigbear said:


> I've been told that some mineral blocks are on the verge of having too much copper in them because they are created for cattle. Apparently too much copper will kill a whitetail. Can anyone confirm the amount of copper that a whitetail must take in to have any negative effects?
> 
> About 10 years ago we acquired a 55 gal. drum of pretzel salt from a pretzel factory. This guy loved it!


PA. bigbear That is an awesome PA. buck!!


----------



## eyebrowcounter (Mar 15, 2009)

"PENN STATE":darkbeer: Drop me a pm when your comming and you got it.


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Cudorun said:


> gjs4, Have you personally ever seen any results to your bucks antlers as a result of your mineral supplements? Thanks, Pike


PIke,

How can you clearly say that the minerals did or did not help? I can't say that the minerals that I supplement DEFINENTLY helped a buck to develop a bigger or better rack. But at the same time, how would you determine with any certainty that it did not?


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

scrapejuice said:


> PIke,
> 
> How can you clearly say that the minerals did or did not help? I can't say that the minerals that I supplement DEFINENTLY helped a buck to develop a bigger or better rack. But at the same time, how would you determine with any certainty that it did not?


Just be patient Grass Hopper and let GJ answer.:wink:


----------



## MNmike (Dec 27, 2003)

*why buy block at all then?*

If they are "worthless"


I know I've used 50# brown blocks on several occasions, but the deer seem to hit the "mix" more as seen by trail cameras. Both are close to water and cover.


----------



## jasonsmeg (Dec 6, 2007)

This is one of the best Threads on AT in a while. Thanks for all the great info!


----------



## cptleo1 (May 30, 2007)

"The reason deer start hitting mineral sites in the spring and pretty much stop around Oct. 1st. is because they need sodium to maintain cellular osmotic balance during this time period of the year. On a cellular level in the body, sodium and potassium balance with each other, potassium intra-cellular and sodium extra-cellular. If sodium is at low levels in the diet and potassium is at high levels, deer are attracted to sodium in order to maintain the potassium/sodium balance. Lush, green forage is often high in potassium and nearly void of sodium. This is why deer are attracted to salt (sodium) primarily in the spring and summer and early fall months". Pike 
_________________

Boys - If salt helps their internal balance - Let them have it

Anything that _might_ improve the overall health of the herd is worth doing.

I believe most feel one salt lick per 40ac is about right.

$20 for 160ac is cheap (4 white blocks).

The fact that they only hit the block at a certain time of year makes me believe that they need it/want it for _some_ reason.

Probably better they find the salt on my property than my neighbors.

I will agree with others, that this thread is the most intelligent, maturely thought out discussion I have ever see on this forum

KUDOS to one and all.

Leo


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Cudorun said:


> Just be patient Grass Hopper and let GJ answer.:wink:


OK Pike, I've been patient. How do you know for sure, that the supplemented calcium and phosphate serves no benefit? Do tell??


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

scrapejuice said:


> OK Pike, I've been patient. How do you know for sure, that the supplemented calcium and phosphate serves no benefit? Do tell??


Scrape You know what??? I have taken the time and tried to answer every question you have threw at me, only for you to try to think up another question to prove me wrong.
So if you think your magical little recipe works then by all means have at it.:wink: You keep asking me to provide proof, which I have done.
How about YOU provide everyone here some proof for a change that your magical recipe does benefit your herd?? Thanks, Pike


----------



## jlh42581 (Oct 21, 2009)

one could argue that if 80% of antler mass during growth is water that salt will make you retain more water. thats what the magic ingredient in gatorade is.


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

jlh42581 said:


> one could argue that if 80% of antler mass during growth is water that salt will make you retain more water. thats what the magic ingredient in gatorade is.


Great!! And if true, (I have no clue if it is) proves my point yet again that salt is the only ingedient in Scrapes Magical recipe that does any thing to benefit the whitetail deer. Pike


----------



## Cajun83 (Sep 30, 2009)

Cudorun said:


> Scrape You know what??? I have taken the time and tried to answer every question you have threw at me, only for you to try to think up another question to prove me wrong.
> So if you think your magical little recipe works then by all means have at it.:wink: You keep asking me to provide proof, which I have done.
> How about YOU provide everyone here some proof for a change that your magical recipe does benefit your herd?? Thanks, Pike


Technically, you provided proof that in your testing (and the testing of other universities), no noticeable benefit was found. You did not provide proof that supplemental mineral blocks do nothing. 

I don't think he was trying to prove you wrong at all. Some people just want more information than others. For some a simple "nope, does nothing" works... for others, they want an explanation. 

You told him to be patient to let someone else answer, that person didn't answer...


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

Cajun great, but I have tried to answer numerous other questions for scrape and he didnt accept those answers so why waste my time? 
Also please show me where I said they do nothing???
Providing deer with a source of sodium (salt) is a big benefit to them. Pike


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Cudorun said:


> Scrape let me ask you this, have you ever had a buck that used your mineral supplements that you honestly feel that your supplements benefitted its antler growth in anyway? If so please post each and every pic of this particular buck that you got of it using your licks etc. from March thru the end of the antler growing period and *I will be able to prove to you that your supplements did nothing for that particular deer other than providing it with a source of salt. *There is no shame in feeling the way you do!! When I was your age I was determined to come up with a supplement that would benefit deer, I was also determined to marry a Victoria's Secret model and harvest a 200 inch buck. Aleast I still have a chance at harvesting a 200 inch buck!!
> 
> Also PSU, Auburn, Texas Tech. Miss. State and other top notched schools have controlled the variables many, many times and never once came up with any positive results.
> Infact the only institution that claims they have is the Whitetail Institute. Like I mentioned before, If PSU can invent, produce then successfully inplant an artificial heart in a cow (and them much later a Human) we can surely do a proper scientific study on mineral supplements and the affects they have on the whitetail deer. Pike





Cudorun said:


> Scrape You know what??? I have taken the time and tried to answer every question you have threw at me, only for you to try to think up another question to prove me wrong.
> So if you think your magical little recipe works then by all means have at it.:wink: You keep asking me to provide proof, which I have done.
> How about YOU provide everyone here some proof for a change that your magical recipe does benefit your herd?? Thanks, Pike


Hold up there Pike, no need to be going and getting all anal on me. You simply stated in the above post in bold, that you could prove that the supplements I provided would do nothing for the deer. I agreed that I could not provide proof that it does, but was trying to logically figure out why it would not as this thread progressed. It all seemed to be in good nature, till your most recent post. Did I strike a nerve or something? Don't take your marbles and go home!:wink: Didn't mean to get you all mad. I wouldn't even say I doubt you as you have provided some pretty good proof. Just wanted to know *how* you could clearly show me how your determination is without a doubt true. Thats all. Lighten up, no need to get sore over this. Were just having a discussion.

Like I said before, I don't have any proof nor claim that my "magical" formula does benefit my herd. Just trying to apply a little logic to a debatable subject. It just stands to reason if you could increase a bucks uptake of the 2 most abundant elements (Calcium and Phosphorus) in bucks antlers during antler development that it would/might increase the size of his antlers. Particularly if he is deficient in one or both of the elements.

To me it still has to come down to a few things.
1) They can only benefit from a certain level, anything in excess of this is not beneficial. So if they are not deficient, then it will do them no good.
2) They are not able to absorb the elements/minerals into their bloodstream for whatever reason.
3) They are not able to take in enough minerals/elements to make any noticeable difference.

If its none of these, then perhaps someone else has some additional ideas or reasons why it doesn't. Again, didn't mean to rub anyone the wrong way. Kind of surprised me. Are you having a bad day?

BTW, this isn't "MY" magical recipe as you call it. Its a recipe that I got from here on AT, and a lot of others use it. I just happen to be one of those that picked up on it.


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

scrapejuice said:


> OK Pike, I've been patient. How do you know for sure, that the supplemented calcium and phosphate serves no benefit? Do tell??


Cajun I will answer once again, Because scientists have fed subjects in their studies supplemented calcium and phosphate each and every day, for years and have not seen any noticeable difference. So there is no way that a whitetail that uses a lick once every 10 days, once every 2 weeks or once a month over a 5 month period is going to benefit from those elements either. Pike


----------



## Teh Wicked (Jul 30, 2009)

The best deer attractant is the natural stuff...It can never be beat I dont think...

I have used the 50lb salt blocks for years, combine a 50lb block with a timed corn feeder and ou will have a whitetail heaven. They will bed down close and stay close a slong as you keep the food sources flowing.

Way back when, I didnt have corn feeders and I would just buy the $3 50lb bags of corn and of course it would be gone in just 4-5 days. and I would go back out and dump another 50lbs. This was before I ever even knew what a trail camera was. I had no clue what was eating my food but it sure was getting hammered. I went through probably 70 bags of corn over a 1 year period and 3 50lb blocks. That year of course I got hurt and couldnt hunt the site, but my buddies sure as hell hunted it and every single one fo them got a doe with there bows and nice buck with there rifles and muzzleloaders. All from the same stand...

Occasionally I would raid my neighbors crab apple tree and clean up all the fallen apples. Would probably have 2-3 burlap sakcs full of apples and dump them with the corn and give it a nice mix. When i done that it was all gone within 2-3 days...

My friend right now currently swears that mixing dried molasses with his cracked corn in his feeders works crazy good. He said he mixes about 20-25lb of dried molasses in with about 200lb of cracked corn and they come running when the feeder goes off...


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

scrapejuice said:


> Hold up there Pike, no need to be going and getting all anal on me. You simply stated in the above post in bold, that you could prove that the supplements I provided would do nothing for the deer. I agreed that I could not provide proof that it does, but was trying to logically figure out why it would not as this thread progressed. It all seemed to be in good nature, till your most recent post. Did I strike a nerve or something? Don't take your marbles and go home!:wink: Didn't mean to get you all mad. I wouldn't even say I doubt you as you have provided some pretty good proof. Just wanted to know *how* you could clearly show me how your determination is without a doubt true. Thats all. Lighten up, no need to get sore over this. Were just having a discussion.
> 
> Like I said before, I don't have any proof nor claim that my "magical" formula does benefit my herd. Just trying to apply a little logic to a debatable subject. It just stands to reason if you could increase a bucks uptake of the 2 most abundant elements (Calcium and Phosphorus) in bucks antlers during antler development that it would/might increase the size of his antlers. Particularly if he is deficient in one or both of the elements.
> 
> ...


Scrape Im not mad or take anything personal etc.:wink: But yes having a terrible couple days. I apologize if I was rude. etc.
As far as the few things you mentioned, 1. PSU. did a study were they purposely fed the deer far below what they could find in the wild, fed them just enough to basicly keep them alive.
They supplied one group with mineral supplements and the other nothing.
After the 2 year long study there was no difference in the two groups.


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

Teh Wicked said:


> The best deer attractant is the natural stuff...It can never be beat I dont think...
> 
> I have used the 50lb salt blocks for years, combine a 50lb block with a timed corn feeder and ou will have a whitetail heaven. They will bed down close and stay close a slong as you keep the food sources flowing.
> 
> ...


The wicked, what months of the year did your deer prefer the feed over the blocks? I built 2 feeders last summer and started feeding corn to try to get more trail cam pics, I also put blocks in front of the cams aswell, but I was shocked that the deer pretty much ingored the corn (since I grew up in farm country) but hit the blocks as usual. Then with each passing week in Sept. the deer started hitting the blocks less and the corn more. By Oct 1st. the deer pretty much ignored the blocks ( which is normal) and ate the corn from then on. But like I said I only started feeding deer last July and my area of OH.is almost all forested habitat and almost completely void of AG crops. So I dont know if that was a factor aswell. (maybe it took them a couple months to realize what corn was.) Im going to start feeding again this summer to see if the corn helps increase the amount of pics etc. or if the results will be the same as last year. Pike


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Cudorun said:


> Scrape Im not mad or take anything personal etc.:wink: *But yes having a terrible couple days. I apologize if I was rude. etc.*As far as the few things you mentioned, 1. PSU. did a study were they purposely fed the deer far below what they could find in the wild, fed them just enough to basicly keep them alive.
> They supplied one group with mineral supplements and the other nothing.
> After the 2 year long study there was no difference in the two groups.


No biggie, we all have those from time to time.

I guess, I'm only wondering why the bucks can't utilize the minerals we supplement with. Not IF they can. You have already pretty much provided sufficient evidence to support that. Hope things look up for you soon!


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

Scrape Im right there with you, I still wonder why??? Probably because things just never can be that easy!!:wink: Thanks for the concern but I doubt that is going to happen until I retire or win the lottery! Pike


----------



## clg9mm (Nov 21, 2008)

Then with the theory that minerals do nothing for the antler growth is the difference in racks from the Midwest to Pa purely a genetic difference or does the minerals in the soil also contribute? Lots of farm country in PA so the corn and other crops would be a wash.


----------



## cornfedkiller (Feb 16, 2008)

Hey Cudorun..this is just something Ive been tossing around in my head...I have read and learned that deer will steal the minerals from their bones to make their antlers, then use minerals to replace those that they lost in their bones (I would assume that this is because the antlers grow so fast that mineral uptake would have to be pretty rapid to supply growing antler without stealing from stores in the body). Now this makes me wonder if a mineral supplement with DiCal would benefit the deer's skeleton before it would benefit the antlers. It may help with the rebuilding of them, as well as possibly keeping the bones a little more dense and healthier while the antler is growing. Im not sure if this type of test has been done, but it would obviously be a little more difficult and involved than antler growth studies, as bone densities, etc would need to be constantly monitored. Possibly another way to test this would be to test the animal's wastes (since Im assuming if the deer take in DiCal and other trace minerals and do not need them, they would excrete them, so traces of the minerals would show up in abnormally high levels). If the deer's bodies are using the minerals, it would be safe to say that it is benefiting the deer. Obviously if the deer's bones are staying healthier, it would be worth it for your herd.

I am not doubting anything that has been said already, and it would benefit me if the other minerals were not needed (cost), but Im curious how the idea that the extra minerals do help the deer was thought up if the only research ever done shows the contrary. Did someone just make it up one day and begin telling everyone to do it?


----------



## gjs4 (Jan 10, 2006)

the best time for bucks to be getting nutrients is latewinter early spring. pedicule growth and cell development has been taking place for a couple months in some areas.

as for waht deer crave- thats great form a camera perspective but means nothing from a nutritional standpoint. Pregnant wives crave pickles and ice cream but does that mena the fetus needs ingredients of those?

for pics the mineral lick recipe works great.

in NY (where i am at) licks and 'pour it out' feeding is illegal. in the past i had licks- cant say i saw bigger bucks but this area is small parcels compared to where many of you are at.

if it works for you stick with it.

salt tablets and old school sports drinks are also frowned on now; know why? becasue the high sodium contnet causes nervious system short out due to salt. (sodium is used ot trigger the electric repsonse beween nerves; too much and htings go haywire)

if you think it works, go for it. if it wer elegal here- i would just be putting out trace mineral blocks. besides dical 3/4 years ago was 35-40 a bag anyway.....


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

I think it works, but who I'm I to say. I put mine out in April and use very little salt once the deer start hitting it. I go from a 50/50 mix to a 20/80 mix of salt to dical. I've also found in my area that most of the bigger bucks are done hitting it by mid to late july. So they have to be getting something from it and not just salt. Plus it is an easy way to get pics of the deer at that time. So as long as it ain't hurting them I'll keep doing it


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

clg9mm said:


> Then with the theory that minerals do nothing for the antler growth is the difference in racks from the Midwest to Pa purely a genetic difference or does the minerals in the soil also contribute? Lots of farm country in PA so the corn and other crops would be a wash.


This is a great question!! A question that bugged the crap out of me 10 + years ago when I started hunting SE. OH. Up until 10 years ago I spent my entire life hunting AG. area's of York aswell as MD. Infact it wasnt until I harvested my first deer in OH. that I killed a deer that didnt have corn or beans in its stomach.
(my area of OH, is almost completely forested very rough and steep terreign and almost void of Ag crops.)
Well the quest to find this answer began in my very first time on stand in OH.,
I had what I thought was 2 large mature doe's feed past me, then all the sudden I noticed the largest buttons I had ever seen on a button buck!! I said to myself these deer are fawns!! Everything about them were huge compared to deer in York Co. PA., their head, their ears, their eyes, their trunk, even their tail!! Over the next couple weeks I thought alot about it. And since the deer in this area only had natural browse as their primary food source,compared to York Co. PA. which was nothing but AG. crops, and the fact that my area of OH. had more deer per square mile than York Co. PA. and the fact that you can almost draw a straight line due west on a map between where I hunt in OH. to York Co. PA Bergman's Rule couldnt be a factor. My only logical conclusion was that OH. and PA. had different sub-species of deer thus having different genetic potential. And I my curiousity was pretty much satisfied with that answer, at least unil my next trip out when I harvested a Huge bodied 8-pt (that I thought was atleast 3.5 years of age) infact it was the biggest bodied deer I had ever harvested!! Even though I arrowed a 151 inch 10-pt in MD. the previous fall. Then I aged his jaw and was blown away to see that he was only 2.5 years of age!! I thought Must be mistaken and had a biologist age, nope no mistake!! It was 2.5 year old
My curiousity was back and bugging me even more!! So I researched(which took all but 5 minutes) my theory about different sub-species, and I was shocked to find out that Deer in OH. and Deer in PA. are the same exact sub-species with the same exact genetic potential!! Now I didnt know what to do, I was completely puzzled??? Then I started talking to biologists, the first couple of them gave explanations that I knew couldnt possibly be accurate( I say it, but they were as clue less as me) then I spoke with Kip Adams, A biologist with QDMA as well as an editor with Bow Hunting Mag. He didnt even hesitate!! 
and said the answer is simple, its the mineral content in the soil. He said your deer in OH. are benefitting from the soil with every bite of green briar or acorn they eat, and every sip of water they drink. Finally I had my answer!!:darkbeer: 
But then when I got home, the question hit me of, WHY???? does OH. have better soil than we do here in York co./ Lancaster Co. PA. etc?? After all we have some of the best dirt in the country for growing crops!!
Well to make a long story a little shorter, I came upon a little thing called the Wisconsin Glacier that happened during the last ice age. Turns out it deposited tons of minerals from the western part of PA. thru out the entire midwestern part of the continent. Finally I had my answer!! Pike


----------



## gjs4 (Jan 10, 2006)

digestibility has a ton to do with it too


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

Cudorun said:


> This is a great question!! A question that bugged the crap out of me 10 + years ago when I started hunting SE. OH. Up until 10 years ago I spent my entire life hunting AG. area's of York aswell as MD. Infact it wasnt until I harvested my first deer in OH. that I killed a deer that didnt have corn or beans in its stomach.
> (my area of OH, is almost completely forested very rough and steep terreign and almost void of Ag crops.)
> Well the quest to find this answer began in my very first time on stand in OH.,
> I had what I thought was 2 large mature doe's feed past me, then all the sudden I noticed the largest buttons I had ever seen on a button buck!! I said to myself these deer are fawns!! Everything about them were huge compared to deer in York Co. PA., their head, their ears, their eyes, their trunk, even their tail!! Over the next couple weeks I thought alot about it. And since the deer in this area only had natural browse as their primary food source,compared to York Co. PA. which was nothing but AG. crops, and the fact that my area of OH. had more deer per square mile than York Co. PA. and the fact that you can almost draw a straight line due west on a map between where I hunt in OH. to York Co. PA Bergman's Rule couldnt be a factor. My only logical conclusion was that OH. and PA. had different sub-species of deer thus having different genetic potential. And I my curiousity was pretty much satisfied with that answer, at least unil my next trip out when I harvested a Huge bodied 8-pt (that I thought was atleast 3.5 years of age) infact it was the biggest bodied deer I had ever harvested!! Even though I arrowed a 151 inch 10-pt in MD. the previous fall. Then I aged his jaw and was blown away to see that he was only 2.5 years of age!! I thought Must be mistaken and had a biologist age, nope no mistake!! It was 2.5 year old
> ...


Here is a pic. of the 2.5 year old OH. 8-pt and then a 2.5 year old 8-pt that I killed in York, Co. PA. a couple days a part ( a couple days apart but during a different year). Pike


----------



## cornfedkiller (Feb 16, 2008)

Cudorun said:


> ....and said the answer is simple, its the mineral content in the soil. He said your deer in OH. are benefitting from the soil with every bite of green briar or acorn they eat, and every sip of water they drink. Finally I had my answer!!


Im not understanding..so the minerals do help or dont? The research you posted says it doesnt, but the difference in soil minerals seems to make all the difference in the world? Im just a little confused by what you are saying with this last statement...


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

cornfedkiller said:


> Hey Cudorun..this is just something Ive been tossing around in my head...I have read and learned that deer will steal the minerals from their bones to make their antlers, then use minerals to replace those that they lost in their bones (I would assume that this is because the antlers grow so fast that mineral uptake would have to be pretty rapid to supply growing antler without stealing from stores in the body). Now this makes me wonder if a mineral supplement with DiCal would benefit the deer's skeleton before it would benefit the antlers. It may help with the rebuilding of them, as well as possibly keeping the bones a little more dense and healthier while the antler is growing. Im not sure if this type of test has been done, but it would obviously be a little more difficult and involved than antler growth studies, as bone densities, etc would need to be constantly monitored. Possibly another way to test this would be to test the animal's wastes (since Im assuming if the deer take in DiCal and other trace minerals and do not need them, they would excrete them, so traces of the minerals would show up in abnormally high levels). If the deer's bodies are using the minerals, it would be safe to say that it is benefiting the deer. Obviously if the deer's bones are staying healthier, it would be worth it for your herd.
> 
> I am not doubting anything that has been said already, and it would benefit me if the other minerals were not needed (cost), but Im curious how the idea that the extra minerals do help the deer was thought up if the only research ever done shows the contrary. Did someone just make it up one day and begin telling everyone to do it?


Cornfed. Deer digest minerals from everything they eat and every sip of water they drink 12 months a year and then store them in their skeletal frame until their body needs them to produce antlers and fawns etc. The theory is that deer cannot process the minerals in mineral supplements and store them in their skeletal frame to be used as needed at a later date. Pike


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

gjs4 said:


> as for waht deer crave- thats great form a camera perspective but means nothing from a nutritional standpoint. Pregnant wives crave pickles and ice cream but does that mena the fetus needs ingredients of those?
> 
> for pics the mineral lick recipe works great.


GJ I didnt say the corn I fed them in the summer months was meant to provide any nutritional value. Like I said it was just to get them to smile to the cam's. Thats what my 35 acres of food plots are for! Pike


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

Cudorun said:


> Cornfed. Deer digest minerals from everything they eat and every sip of water they drink 12 months a year and then store them in their skeletal frame until their body needs them to produce antlers and fawns etc. The theory is that deer cannot process the minerals in mineral supplements and store them in their skeletal frame to be used as needed at a later date. Pike


So now it's a theory.


----------



## MNmike (Dec 27, 2003)

*darn dumb farmers*

They been doing it for years for no reason.


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

clg9mm said:


> Then with the theory that minerals do nothing for the antler growth is the difference in racks from the Midwest to Pa purely a genetic difference or does the minerals in the soil also contribute? Lots of farm country in PA so the corn and other crops would be a wash.


As far as antler growth and genetic potential , other than IA. and KS.,(Different sub-species) 
PA.'s herd is the same sub-species (Northern Woodland Whitetail) and has the same genetic potential as deer in OH., IL., MO., IN. WI, MN. and MI. 
The difference in the size of the deer's bodies and antlers is because of the mineral rich soil of the Mid-Western States. The soil is also the reason as of why IA. and KS etc. have larger deer even though the sub-species that PA.'s herd belongs to is the largest sub-species of all the sub-species. Pike


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

jsh0927 said:


> So now it's a theory.


No its a fact that your wasting your time and money, but it is a theory as of why the whitetail cannot store the minerals in supplements in their skeletal frame. Pike


----------



## cornfedkiller (Feb 16, 2008)

Cudorun said:


> As far as antler growth and genetic potential , other than IA. and KS.,(Different sub-species)
> PA.'s herd is the same sub-species (Northern Woodland Whitetail) and has the same genetic potential as deer in OH., IL., MO., IN. WI, MN. and MI.
> The difference in the size of the deer's bodies and antlers is because of the mineral rich soil of the Mid-Western States. The soil is also the reason as of why IA. and KS etc. have larger deer even though the sub-species that PA.'s herd belongs to is the largest sub-species of all 7 sub-species. Pike


Where do I find the breakdown of all the different subspecies? I was unaware that the deer we have here in MN are different than those in Iowa or Kansas...


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

I killed a 2.5 yr. old in PA in 05 and killed a 4.5 yr old in OH in 08. If anything I would say the PA deer if allowed to grow 2 more years would have been considerable bigger body wise than the OH deer


----------



## cornfedkiller (Feb 16, 2008)

cornfedkiller said:


> Where do I find the breakdown of all the different subspecies? I was unaware that the deer we have here in MN are different than those in Iowa or Kansas...


Nevermind Cudorun, I found it..interesting, and news to me!


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

Cudorun said:


> No its a fact that your wasting your time and money, but it is a theory as of why the whitetail cannot store the minerals in supplements in their skeletal frame. Pike


Well I guess I'm with you then. Just doing it to get the pics. Atleast it feels like your doing something that matters, when putting the mineral sites


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

cornfedkiller said:


> Where do I find the breakdown of all the different subspecies? I was unaware that the deer we have here in MN are different than those in Iowa or Kansas...


I believe you have Northern Woodlands, Kansas Deer and Dakota Deer in MN. and Iowa has Northern woodlands in the eastern part of the state and Kansas Deer in the western Part. Pike


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

jsh0927 said:


> Well I guess I'm with you then. Just doing it to get the pics. Atleast it feels like your doing something that matters, when putting the mineral sites


The Good News is you are!! Your providing them with a source of salt and that is very important for any herd that is more than 15-20 miles inland from the coast. Pike


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

jsh0927 said:


> I killed a 2.5 yr. old in PA in 05 and killed a 4.5 yr old in OH in 08. If anything I would say the PA deer if allowed to grow 2 more years would have been considerable bigger body wise than the OH deer


Huh? One county (Muskigum)in OH. has produced more 180 + inch bucks than all 67 PA. counties combined. And even though Mature bucks are rare, I promise you that over the last 70 years the State of PA. has had far more bucks reach maturity than that one county in OH. 

Here is a pic of one of our female fawns in OH., Have your ever seen a female fawn in the entire state of PA. as big during early August? Pike


----------



## Ohio Mossy Oak (Dec 17, 2006)

Cudorun said:


> As far as antler growth and genetic potential , other than IA. and KS.,(Different sub-species)
> PA.'s herd is the same sub-species (Northern Woodland Whitetail) and has the same genetic potential as deer in OH., IL., MO., IN. WI, MN. and MI.
> The difference in the size of the deer's bodies and antlers is because of the mineral rich soil of the Mid-Western States. The soil is also the reason as of why IA. and KS etc. have larger deer even though the sub-species that PA.'s herd belongs to is the largest sub-species of all the sub-species. Pike





Cudorun said:


> I believe you have Northern Woodlands, Kansas Deer and Dakota Deer in MN. and Iowa has Northern woodlands in the eastern part of the state and Kansas Deer in the western Part. Pike



Holy This thread should get awards for being very informative,staying on topic.An still being interesting.I am a newer deer/bowhunter.I am not young(im 30)..an Been hunting a few year. I have always wondered if Salt blocks are effective..an Now i think i know the answer.Probably have to read this one a few time over


----------



## Ohio Mossy Oak (Dec 17, 2006)

Cudorun said:


> Huh? One county (Muskigum)in OH. has produced more 180 + inch bucks than all 67 PA. counties combined. And even though Mature bucks are rare, I promise you that over the last 70 years the State of PA. has had far more bucks reach maturity than that one county in OH. Pike


I like that tidbit..I live 1/4 mile from muskingum county.On the licking,perry,muskingum border.Didnt mean to kinda get off topic


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

Guys im throwing in the towel!! :shade: This is a great site but for now on im sticking with less controversial topics like Which Bow is better, Mathews or Bowtech etc.? Pike


----------



## Ohio Mossy Oak (Dec 17, 2006)

Cudorun said:


> Guys im throwing in the towel!! :shade: This is a great site but for now on im sticking with less controversial topics like Which Bow is better, Mathews or Bowtech etc.? Pike


Where is the fun in that.Which bow is better thats a Easy one:zip::zip:


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

I was talking about body size, not antler size. I think it will be a while before PA produces the quality of bucks that OH does(if ever). Maybe it is just a freak thing with my deer, cause I have seen some big bodied deer in OH. I would have to go through some pics and see about the fawns


----------



## outdooraholic (Apr 15, 2008)

wow! hats off to everyone! i havent read a thread this mature in a while now!!! there was even a little tiff in the middle that was settleld as maturely and adult like as ive ever seen! cudorun - thank you very much for your research and years of experiance!!! i will definatly not be wasting any more money/time/effort in the "magic mix"  and will just go with the plain ol white block. thanks agian everyone for the education and cooperation!


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

jsh0927 said:


> I was talking about body size, not antler size. I think it will be a while before PA produces the quality of bucks that OH does(if ever). Maybe it is just a freak thing with my deer, cause I have seen some big bodied deer in OH. I would have to go through some pics and see about the fawns


jsh, are you from one of the 10 far western counties of PA.? If so there isnt much(if any difference) between those counties and OH. Pike


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

outdooraholic said:


> wow! hats off to everyone! i havent read a thread this mature in a while now!!! there was even a little tiff in the middle that was settleld as maturely and adult like as ive ever seen! cudorun - thank you very much for your research and years of experiance!!! i will definatly not be wasting any more money/time/effort in the "magic mix"  and will just go with the plain ol white block. thanks agian everyone for the education and cooperation!


Thanx!! But for now on when I see a thread that the topic is mineral supplements, all im going to post is what I use, where I place them and what time of year I put them out or replenish them. :shade:

And that little tiff between me and Scrape is all on me. Pike


----------



## t-tomshooter (Feb 17, 2005)

great thread and i dont care what you use homemade or not, expensive or not, just seeing how the deer respond and use the mineral site is fun.


----------



## mn5503 (Feb 21, 2006)

Nice job Cudorun.


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

Nope from lancaster co. I think it was an optical illusion or something it's not even close sorry! Never weigh any deer so it's all a guess with me, guess I need to work on that.


----------



## outdooraholic (Apr 15, 2008)

Cudorun said:


> Thanx!! But for now on when I see a thread that the topic is mineral supplements, all im going to post is what I use, where I place them and what time of year I put them out or replenish them. :shade:
> 
> And that little tiff between me and Scrape is all on me. Pike


well then im thankful for stumbling acorss this thread!!!!
if you come across anymore mineral threads just put a link to this one and say "this is what i think" because the information is very valuable, but i can definatly say i wouldnt want to have to type all that information agian!


----------



## hardball15 (Jan 6, 2007)

Cudorun said:


> Huh? One county (Muskigum)in OH. has produced more 180 + inch bucks than all 67 PA. counties combined. And even though Mature bucks are rare, I promise you that over the last 70 years the State of PA. has had far more bucks reach maturity than that one county in OH.
> 
> Here is a pic of one of our female fawns in OH., Have your ever seen a female fawn in the entire state of PA. as big during early August? Pike


Man. Im really missing out. Look at Oregon Fawns compared to that beast!


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

Not trying argue here, just wanted to put these here for a comparison for Cudorun. Top pic is a Pa deer and bottom pic is of an Oh deer. I don't really see much of a difference, and I know for a fact that where I hunt in OH is only 30 min. from you. So our locations are pretty much the same. Like I said I'm not trying to stir the pot, just telling you what I see. That fawn of yours must be some kinda freak. lol! Are sure that ain't a buck fawn? hahaha


----------



## furondrt (Mar 24, 2010)

i live in the south do yall think the hogs will mes with a salt block and just tear it up


----------



## Cajun83 (Sep 30, 2009)

furondrt said:


> i live in the south do yall think the hogs will mes with a salt block and just tear it up


If they won't, it would be the one thing on the planet that the hogs wont tear up... lol


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

jsh I did name it Baby Hughey!!:wink:
But let me try to put it into perspective for you with this example.
During the 2003 OH. season I was hunting a very good buck, (didnt have a cam in the area so I didnt know how good) my stand was at a creek crossing were an old skidder road crossed the creek but it was very hard to see with the naked eye because of how old it was. (if the buckse didnt show me it while I watched them cross at that exact spot over and over again from another stand location I would have never knew it was there) The creek and banks were deep and steep except for this spot (it it is the perfect funnel especially when the creek is running high) The bank at the crossing didnt look much different except for being a littl e less steep, but the creek was alot shallower when I walked across it for the forst time.
I ended up harvesting the buck that I thought was making the sign, and as my buddy was helping me get the deer out I mentioned that he should wait 2 days and hunt that stand every eve, for the remainder of the hunt. meanwhile I headed back home to PA. Well the first eve. he hunted my stand he harvested this buck, (I guess I was wrong when I thought I killed the big one) ans made a perferct shot on a true monster.









When he brought it home the next morning, I was in total shock!!  and dont think I have hugged another man more times in my entire life than I did 
during the first 5 minutes after seeing this buck of a life time. I was blown away and couldnt stop looking at it and holding it.

But you know what blew me away more? That this buck was killed on our property, out of my tree, and it was bigger than any typical buck that was ever killed in the entire state of PA!! I thought about how many millions of hunters that took to the deer woods over the last 80-100 years (That number had to be over one hundred million hunters) and also how many bucks were born and lived in the Keystone state over the same time frame and never once was there a buck harvested in PA. as big as the buck that I was holding in my hands.


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

Here is another comparison for you. Same order, but the Oh deer is a yearling buck and the PA deer is yearling doe. I believe as a hole that yes, OH deer are bigger, but that doesn't always hold true, especially when comparing fawns. Some are born much early than others.


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

jsh, I agree with that statement 100% But on average, the average fawn, 1.5 year old, 2.5 year old 3.5 year old etc. deer in OH. will be larger than the avg. deer of the same age class in PA.


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

jsh in your opinion how old do you think this buck is?
Anyone else that is good at judging a deer's age on the hoof is more than welcome to help jsh out?


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

Ok, sorry for getting off pace here, just having good conversation. By the way that is a very impressive buck and a buck of a lifetime for anyone. Got a score on him?


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

I'm behind here haha. It's hard to look past that rack, but if I to guess I would say 3.5.


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

Here is a PA deer I believe to be 3.5, he just doesn't have the bone on his head that your OH deer does. Maybe I'm way off too?


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Pike, I would have to go with 3.5 on that buck, perhaps 4.5, but no older.

AS for the size of the fawns, I believe there are many factors. ONe of which I don't believe anyone has touched on is "how close your herd is to carrying capacity". By this I mean how available the best foods in the area are to the growing fawns. Obviously genetics plays in, as does mineral uptake (yeah, I know here we go again). But also as mentioned above sort of, the age structure and ratio of the adults buck and does. If most of the does are being bred in their first estrous cycle (mid Nov. on average), then that would have the fawns being dropped around the 1st week of June I believe. Instead of a month or more later. If this were the case, a 16 week old fawn would obviously be larger than say a 12 week. Also something that is often not thought about is the physical condition of the mother when she begins to nurse the fawn/s. Here is yet another thought, which is only me brainstorming a little, but if the mother only has one surviving offspring, then it should get better nutrition than if she is providing for two. Yet one other thing that may be a reason for an abnormally large fawn in the fall, would be if its mother just happen to be one of those that came into estrous the first part or middle of OCT. I would have to think by 2.5 years old the fawns size would eventually blend in with others though, unless it has some sort of hormonal issues or just genetically superior to the others.

Just thinking out loud a little.


----------



## t-tomshooter (Feb 17, 2005)

Wow what a buck your buddy killed, he has to go over 190"!!! u got a pic of the buck you thought was making the sign? NIce


----------



## mn5503 (Feb 21, 2006)

I hunt MN and Iowa. The bodies get much bigger on average in MN but in SE Iowa the racks grow much faster, ON AVERAGE.


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

scrapejuice said:


> Pike, I would have to go with 3.5 on that buck, perhaps 4.5, but no older.
> 
> AS for the size of the fawns, I believe there are many factors. ONe of which I don't believe anyone has touched on is "how close your herd is to carrying capacity". By this I mean how available the best foods in the area are to the growing fawns. Obviously genetics plays in, as does mineral uptake (yeah, I know here we go again). But also as mentioned above sort of, the age structure and ratio of the adults buck and does. If most of the does are being bred in their first estrous cycle (mid Nov. on average), then that would have the fawns being dropped around the 1st week of June I believe. Instead of a month or more later. If this were the case, a 16 week old fawn would obviously be larger than say a 12 week. Also something that is often not thought about is the physical condition of the mother when she begins to nurse the fawn/s. Here is yet another thought, which is only me brainstorming a little, but if the mother only has one surviving offspring, then it should get better nutrition than if she is providing for two. Yet one other thing that may be a reason for an abnormally large fawn in the fall, would be if its mother just happen to be one of those that came into estrous the first part or middle of OCT. I would have to think by 2.5 years old the fawns size would eventually blend in with others though, unless it has some sort of hormonal issues or just genetically superior to the others.
> 
> Just thinking out loud a little.


Good thinking at that.


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

scrape & jsh yep they all could be factors, which I already considered an addressed most in my initial post comparing PA. deer to OH. deer
First, That fawn is bigger than any fawn I have seen in PA. even during the month of Oct. so whether it was born late or early makes no difference.
2nd. Both area's have great deer habitat with York co PA. having the best of the two. York Co. is loaded with corn, beans and orchards while OH. is almost completely forested with some hay fields and pasture cut out of the timber (we call them grass farmers) and almost void of AG, crops. 

3rd. Both area's DD. is under carrying cap. with OH. having more deer per square mile

4th, both area's have good buck to doe ratio's, infact PA. has never had a buck to doe ratio of higher 1:2.5, but my property in OH. is almost perfect and under 1:1.5 ,advantage to OH.
But even so, the rut in OH. is longer and more drawn out.

5. The fawning season in OH. is alot longer in OH. than it is here in PA., 
advantage York Co. (this frustrated the heck out of me becuase we tried everyhting we could to shorten it, so the fawns drop would happen all at once (a short time period) and would overwelm our large yote and bobcat population. Unfortunately it is impossible. Once again advantage York Co.


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

scrape and jsh, You both are right on the money at 3.5 years of age,
I even tried to stump you because the buck is strecthing his body out in the pic after exiting his bed.


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

t-tom right on the money it scored 192 and some change, and yes I will post a pic.


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

mn5503 said:


> I hunt MN and Iowa. The bodies get much bigger on average in MN but in SE Iowa the racks grow much faster, ON AVERAGE.


that is because of Bergmans Rule and the longer harsher MN. winters. 
MN.'s sub species of Deer is also primarily Northern Woodlands as well which is larger than the Kansas Deer sub-species which makes up the majority of the deer in IA.


----------



## MNmike (Dec 27, 2003)

*could tell right off*



Cudorun said:


> scrape and jsh, You both are right on the money at 3.5 years of age,
> I even tried to stump you because the buck is strecthing his body out in the pic after exiting his bed.


With the chest and front legs. It in no way was 4 1/2, and not 2 1/2.


----------



## mn5503 (Feb 21, 2006)

Cudorun said:


> that is because of Bergmans Rule and the longer harsher MN. winters.
> MN.'s sub species of Deer is also primarily Northern Woodlands as well which is larger than the Kansas Deer sub-species which makes up the majority of the deer in IA.


That is correct sir:darkbeer: By the way Cudorun, what a buck!!!

I like Bergmann's Rule:wink:



































The fawns can get pretty large too:wink:


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

OMG!!!! That is a freakin Hippo with horns!! Congrads!


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Dang Steve!! That thing is a giant(or your a little guy:wink! Do you know how much its field dressed weight was?


----------



## jsh0927 (Dec 22, 2009)

That thing is huge! You know my dad hunted MN once, said he saw a buck there, but he couldn't get a shot. He said it was the biggest deer he ever saw, and now I believe him. WOW!


----------



## towermonkey (Mar 19, 2007)

*That case study is 60 years old*

A lot has changed in the way of minerals and the way testing can be done. I would like to see a more recent study on the effects of adding minerals and Dical if there is one available.


----------



## t-tomshooter (Feb 17, 2005)

Cudorun said:


> OMG!!!! That is a freakin Hippo with horns!! Congrads!


I was thinking the same thing, Good Golly what a deer!


----------



## Cudorun (Aug 4, 2009)

towermonkey said:


> A lot has changed in the way of minerals and the way testing can be done. I would like to see a more recent study on the effects of adding minerals and Dical if there is one available.


PSU and other univeristies have done plenty of other studies since.:wink:
If you believe minerals and Di Cal helps than keep using it, but if not, try fertilizing some Oak or Crab Apple tree's, (prune as well) plant a food plot or some type of mast tree's, (heck just brush hogging, spraying and then fertizling the new young growth without even planting a food plot is very beneficial) create some sancuaries. do some cutting and remove junk tree's to open up the canopy for oaks etc. These are things that we have done that are inexpensive and there is no debate on whether or not they benefit deer and the other wildlife that share the habitat.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 19, 2004)

Cudorun said:


> The reason for this a deer's digestive system cannot process the minerals in supplements then deposit them in their skeletal frame to be used at a much later date to produce fawns and antlers.


Now, I am not a wildlife biologist and have a very minimal knowledge of whitetail physiology. However, I do know a thing or two about Biochemistry as it pertains to HUMAN osteology. Enough to know that in humans calcium regulation is handled by the following process:

Vitamin D is obtained in our diets or by photolysis of 7-dehydrocholesterol in skin exposed to sunlight. The "Vitamin D Hormone" calcitriol (1,25 dihydoxycholecalciferol) is then produced from Vitamin D by an enzyme catalyzed hydroxylation in the liver and kidneys. 
Calcitriol then works with parathyroid hormone in regulating calcium levels, directing depostion (favorable) and mobilization (bone degradation) of calcium from bone tissue. Calcitriol works specifically by activating the synthesis of an intestinal calcium binding protein essential for uptake of dietary calcium. 

Now all that is fine and good but your probably wondering how it applies to deer. Based on the info you provided about the inability of deer to deposit excess dietary calcium into the skeletal system, it leads me to believe that deer are missing one link in the chain described above. Now since parathyroid hormone was shown to to assist in skeletal deposition of calcium in deer much like in humans, I'll focus my theory on the calcitriol pathway. 

A deer's inability to produce the intestinal binding protein necessary to deposit excess dietary calcium is either due to a lack of dietary Vitamin D, an inability to produce calcitriol, or a lack of protein precursors necessary to produce the binding protein. 

As this all applies to mineral supplements and the topic of discussion, ideally a supplement could be created that shored up the deficiencies listed above. Whether that be adding a higher vitamin D % to the supplement, fortifying the supplement with calcitriol, adding the necessary protein precursors, or all of the above. If that would be in the realm of possible then in theory a supplement could be created that would allow the excess calcium deer ingest from today's supplements to be deposited to their skeletal frames and as it concerns the bowhunters of the forum, ANTLER GROWTH.

Now, corrections are welcome, but I do believe my science is solid. However, as far as practicality goes: the amount of research that would need to be dedicated to produce and manufacture in quantity such a supplement would be incredibly cost prohibitive to the point were the concept is nearly impossible to implement for the average Joe hunter. And even if practical production methods would be achieved, there would still be the ethical debate about a pharmaceutical supplement being administered to wild animals for the sole purpose of antler growth (despite the beneficial effects of deer herds with stronger bones).


Just a little something for the AT community to chew on :thumb:


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

Dreamer said:


> Now, I am not a wildlife biologist and have a very minimal knowledge of whitetail physiology. However, I do know a thing or two about Biochemistry as it pertains to HUMAN osteology. Enough to know that in humans calcium regulation is handled by the following process:
> 
> Vitamin D is obtained in our diets or by photolysis of 7-dehydrocholesterol in skin exposed to sunlight. The "Vitamin D Hormone" calcitriol (1,25 dihydoxycholecalciferol) is then produced from Vitamin D by an enzyme catalyzed hydroxylation in the liver and kidneys.
> Calcitriol then works with parathyroid hormone in regulating calcium levels, directing depostion (favorable) and mobilization (bone degradation) of calcium from bone tissue. Calcitriol works specifically by activating the synthesis of an intestinal calcium binding protein essential for uptake of dietary calcium.
> ...


I like that, and grasp it. I believe the biggest hang up, as with any attempt to supplement, is getting the deer to consume enough to make a noticeable difference.

Like I mentioned before, to create SOLID, undeniable evidence. Would require cloning, then the sky is the limit. But do we really need/want to go down that road?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 19, 2004)

scrapejuice said:


> Like I mentioned before, to create SOLID, undeniable evidence. Would require cloning, then the sky is the limit. But do we really need/want to go down that road?


exactly. in the end a antler growth could never surpass genetic potential. ad yes, cloning wild animals for the purpose of trophy hunting is a whole knew level of unethical in my opinion


----------



## Matt Musto (May 12, 2008)

So you mean to tell me the "Trophy Rocks " I put out will not grow the bucks on my property Trophy Racks? I want my money BAAAAAACCCKKKK!!!!!




JK


----------



## Matt Musto (May 12, 2008)

One topic in this thread that I can chime in on is body size. Bucks County produces some large bodied deer and some racks. In 04' I killed a 9 point that was estimated by the Taxi to be 8-10 years old he weighed on the scale 202 dressed. In 07' I killed a 2.5 year old (my estimate) 8 point that weighed 175 on the scales. This past season I killed a 4.5 year old (my estimate) 9 point that weighed approximately 215. He was spoiled a couple days later when I found him but he was much larger than my 04' buck so he may have been larger. 

I never hunted Ohio, but I would think these two states produce similar body sized deer.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 19, 2004)

wow, monsters for sure. Just goes to show that your herd is right where you would want it to be. Nutrition, plentiful forage, and favorable weather conditions all have to come together to grow em that big. Also shows that the healthiest deer isn't afforded a nice rack automatically. Can't outgrow your genes


----------



## Gadestroyer74 (Jul 7, 2007)

good stuff here i usually just get a 50 lb bag on trace red mineral salt and pour it into the site works well they can get what they need and it doest cost much


----------



## tjones96761 (Apr 10, 2010)

Jeez, you guys go all scientific and stuff...

I posted my own thread on a Oklahoma hunting site, same recipe!

I don't care what it is, shake a bag of magic chicken bones, turn 3 circles counterclockwise before climbing your stand, sing "I'm a little teapot" softly to yourself every night before you go to bed, if it _MIGHT_ work I'm willing to try it...


----------



## hardball15 (Jan 6, 2007)

Do you have to do the hand motions with the song too?


----------



## ESWhitetail (Jul 11, 2008)

I just got all the things needed to start a homemade mix. how muc of each to i pour into a gallon bucket? ... do i use all of it? i read a coffe can put just one scoop of each? how much of each?


----------



## weave (Oct 17, 2002)

That is the largest deer heart I have ever seen..... :mg:


----------



## cornfedkiller (Feb 16, 2008)

ESWhitetail said:


> I just got all the things needed to start a homemade mix. how muc of each to i pour into a gallon bucket? ... do i use all of it? i read a coffe can put just one scoop of each? how much of each?


1 coffee can of dical, 1 coffee can of stock salt, and 2 coffee cans of trace minerals.

Dump them all into a 5 gallon bucket and mix them up..that would be enough to get one site started. If you bought 50lbs/50lbs/100lbs, you will have enough to make like 5 different sites if you use these measurements.


----------



## NormPaul (Jan 5, 2005)

*I'm not in to making myself sweat.*



cornfedkiller said:


> 1 coffee can of dical, 1 coffee can of stock salt, and 2 coffee cans of trace minerals.
> 
> Dump them all into a 5 gallon bucket and mix them up..that would be enough to get one site started. If you bought 50lbs/50lbs/100lbs, you will have enough to make like 5 different sites if you use these measurements.


I think I'll use the cement mixer! A 5 gallon bucket sounds like more work.
Norm


----------



## bowhuntr311 (May 20, 2009)

Wow. The first 2.5 pages of this thread are probably in top 3% of the best information I have ever read on AT. Awesome.


----------



## mn5503 (Feb 21, 2006)

scrapejuice said:


> Dang Steve!! That thing is a giant(or your a little guy:wink! Do you know how much its field dressed weight was?


Haven't seen this post in a while...

It field dressed at 220lbs. Like I've mentioned before it looked much bigger than that to me. I shot one 240lbs that didn't look as big as the one from last year. They were both weighed on the same scale, so I dunno, the scale doesn't lie, I don't think...?

For the record I'm not a big guy, for comparison to the deer in the picture, I'm 5'10" and 170lbs. Busting my ass in the gym trying to get back the 10 pounds I lost while building my house.....

I plan on killing a bigger one this fall:smile:


----------



## Ohio-Buck (Mar 25, 2010)

Awesome Job Cudorun !


----------



## silver_yummies (Jan 17, 2007)

bump - it's that time of the year again - I might be wasting my time and $ on this mineral mix but it sure is fun and has me a believer that it works in my area.


----------



## luke/r (Dec 2, 2008)

So does this mean that minerals like Antler King really don't make a difference in antler growth? We are going to put some sites out and this thread is exactly the kind of info I was looking for!


----------



## rkt (Jan 24, 2010)

fantastic read,thanks guys


----------



## 1231 (Oct 25, 2010)

great read for sure


----------



## bowhunter009 (Feb 2, 2006)

TTT..great information


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

luke/r said:


> So does this mean that minerals like Antler King really don't make a difference in antler growth? We are going to put some sites out and this thread is exactly the kind of info I was looking for!


No way to tell for sure 100%. Advertising says that it DOES makes a difference in rack size, but they have a vested interest in selling you a product. Science says it DOES NOT make a difference in rack size, and they don't stand to make a dollar from you.

Its your money, spend it how you see best fit. Lots of options here in this thread for making mineral licks. Plain old "salt" draws them in as good as anything if pics are what your after.


----------



## cjp_8476 (Jan 12, 2011)

Here in MN we put out the "mix" for the first time this year. In the past we have always used just plain saltblocks. I don't know why but it seems to us that so far this year the deer are hammering the mineral licks. We put 4 out over several hundred acres, all spaced atleast a mile apart. in all 4 areas the lick is now a deep hole in the ground. So much so we are joking about haveing to haul fill in to replenish the lick site. These licks are at the same location where in the past we have put our salt blocks. In the past we have seen the deer eat the dirt around the block as well and lick and chew on the block. I don't know if they like the mineral lick better, or if since we mixed it intot he dirt the must eat the dirt, or if since we mixed it the soil was loose making it easier remove the dirt but from a "dummy's point of view" they seem to be hitting them much harder than in previous years where just salt was provided???? Not saying anyone is wrong, just commenting on the fact we seem to be very impressed with the activity on the "mix" compared to the plain block.


----------



## HardCoreOutdoor (Jul 8, 2011)

ttt


----------



## apache pilot (Jul 14, 2010)

ttt


----------



## V-TRAIN (Feb 27, 2009)

ttt


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

ttt


----------



## LFM (Jan 10, 2004)

So why is it that the QDMA Emblem on the Trophy Rock? I am not saying it has any benefit to Antler growth as others have stated but overall health for the deer herd for pregnant Does and as some of the studies have pointed out if you are not within 25 miles of a seacoast then the area is more than likely lacking some of the minerals that deer could use for a hwealthy herd overall and would that help with Deer Numbers overall? And the studies say that if they are used during a 5 month period from March thru August would that not benefit the overall deer herd? Yet in Michigan you can only use them in Oct, Nov & Dec when they have no benefit to the deer herd. But they can soak in the ground and the deer seem to dig holes in the ground where they were and are now soaked into the ground. If they were used throughout the year could it not benefit the overall deer herd since we are lacking many of these minerals including calcium and phosphorous across the United States lower 48? They even suggest using them it could help even if there is no studies on free ranging deer to really know why not put out a mineral supplement of your choice and see if the deer find it and use it. Right now here in Michgigan they are pushing APR's and yet there is no rewally data on if this will work they are still willing to force it on some if not all of us if they can get it started. And the area they are using is Leelanau but it is most private land and they are suggesting that 12 DMUs will have the same benefit but these 12 are more divided with more public lands than Leelanau has and the differences in habitat, soil types etc yet they are looking for s small survey to be the way it will be decided on yet one would think it should be all hunters and if 66% are for it then great. There is also another proposal in SLP they are not calling it an APR but APR's are a part of it and in the SLP it is more AG Land which is also private with limited access so again each DMU is very different and yet some think they are all the same across the state. But if they are thenb why so many numbers of Antlerless permits so have both public and private while others don't and so on. It is sad they want to force this on manmy when it is a small group in favor of it. And as many have seen hunter numbers are dropping and this might have more leaving and they suggest youth numbers will increase how if adults are leaving.
So many things and now most are no wanting a One Buck Rule yet with a Combo License tou already have an APR for one of the tags with 4 points or better on one side. And the talk for the SLP is that both will require 4 points on a side or you can buy an archery license for one tag and a firearms for another with no restrictions but can only be used during that season. Yet the QDMA has their name on Trophy Rock so it make one wonder!!!

Just some thoughts on all of this...

LFM


----------



## jjtrain44 (Mar 11, 2008)

i use something a little different, i take an old apple juice bottle or whatever juice the kids are drinking ( gallon size) and add a couple bottles of cheap pancake syrup any brand will do i go cheapest,put in about 1/4 full of table salt (very cheap) then tie it up with a piece of rope to a limb ( upside down, cap facing ground) and poke a few holes in the cap, the ssyrup runs thru the salt and drips down my deer seem to love it and it cost about $3-$4 to make


----------



## scrapejuice (Dec 1, 2003)

jjtrain44 said:


> i use something a little different, i take an old apple juice bottle or whatever juice the kids are drinking ( gallon size) and add a couple bottles of cheap pancake syrup any brand will do i go cheapest,put in about 1/4 full of table salt (very cheap) then tie it up with a piece of rope to a limb ( upside down, cap facing ground) and poke a few holes in the cap, the ssyrup runs thru the salt and drips down my deer seem to love it and it cost about $3-$4 to make


hmmmm?


----------



## RSTV (Aug 16, 2012)

Ttt for a great thread. Almost time again for licks.


----------



## jlh42581 (Oct 21, 2009)

25/75 mix of deercain/water softerner crystals 

Something sweet in there that they like


----------



## RSTV (Aug 16, 2012)

I went this morning and bought some mix, despite reading this thread. 

from Tractor supply.

1-50lb bag Purina Mineral Supplement(all purpose)
2-50lb bags American Stockman trace mineral
1-50lb bag Stock Salt-fine

mix 5gal bucket

1 part mineral supplement
2 parts trace mineral
1 part stock salt

Dig a hole the size of the bucket with loose dirt in the bottom. Pour in the mix and mix thoroughly. After the first rain ,it will absorb into the ground. Come feb ,the deer should start frequenting the site. Make sure there is a reliable water source within 100yds or less. Just my experience. I agree with most of the info on this thread. I feel this is agood way to keep deer in the area.Has to benefit overall health of the deer in some way. I plan to create 3-5 sites between now and march on my new SC lease.


----------



## TAIL~~CHASER (Dec 14, 2015)

Ttt


----------



## H20fwler (Apr 1, 2014)

Cudorun said:


> Scrape why not save yourself alot of time and $$$ and just go to your local feed store or TSC and buy the 50lb. generic mineral blocks that only cost $5.00? Over the years I have tried every type of rock,block, homemade recipe, lick etc. and nothing works any better than the 50 lb. generic blocks/ bags.
> And since mineral supplements do not benefit deer in any way other than providing them with a source of salt there is no need to waste money buying a commercial mineral supplement with a huge buck on the package or time and $$$ running all over town shopping for ingredients for the newest, bestest homemade recipe to hit the net. Pike


Agree 100%
I've been doing the same for 30+ years and over the years I've tried other options never found anything as good as a #50 trace mineral block on a stump.

Deer seem to hit mineral sites the most from late March-late July but stop in year round, I've got a couple sites the deer have used for decades.


----------



## actaxidermy (Dec 17, 2011)

RACKOLOGY Premium Deer Supplement and Attractant!!!!! Best bang for your buck hands down!


----------



## rmomn (Feb 13, 2007)

actaxidermy said:


> RACKOLOGY Premium Deer Supplement and Attractant!!!!! Best bang for your buck hands down!


Cheap plug!


----------

