Different Mineral Blocks? - Southern States
07-09-2009, 11:02 AM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 272
Different Mineral Blocks? - Southern States
Planned to use a mineral block in front of a camera on a new property to and see what's in the area.
Went by Southern States today to pick up a mineral block. They had 3 blocks.
1. White 50lb - Pure Salt
2. Red 50lb - Sold as Mineral
3. Buck & Doe 25lb - "Rainshed Corn a Plenty" block
Anyone know the difference and the Pro/Con's of each?
Went by Southern States today to pick up a mineral block. They had 3 blocks.
1. White 50lb - Pure Salt
2. Red 50lb - Sold as Mineral
3. Buck & Doe 25lb - "Rainshed Corn a Plenty" block
Anyone know the difference and the Pro/Con's of each?
07-12-2009, 03:22 AM
#3
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uniontown, kentucky
Posts: 570
Are you wanting to just draw deer in for the camera or do you also want to help with feeding them and makeing them healthy.
For the camera go with the white salt, if you want to help make them healthy go with a mineral mix and you will still get photos as the mix has salt. Me and two of my buddies go in togather every year and buy the stuff mix it up and split it among us. I have good photos of deer coming into it and you only have to freash it up every 6 months. We send around $ 10.00 each for the stuff we mix and it last all year and we all put out three or more sites.
Good Hunting.
For the camera go with the white salt, if you want to help make them healthy go with a mineral mix and you will still get photos as the mix has salt. Me and two of my buddies go in togather every year and buy the stuff mix it up and split it among us. I have good photos of deer coming into it and you only have to freash it up every 6 months. We send around $ 10.00 each for the stuff we mix and it last all year and we all put out three or more sites.
Good Hunting.
07-12-2009, 02:34 PM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, PA.
Posts: 1,313
Harley I use the both the 50lb white and the red blocks that I buy for $6.00 each and both work great.
Dont worry about which benefits the deer etc. because other than providing the herd with a source of salt there is no mineral recipe, block, rock, lick, jam etc. that does anything for them.
Below is a link to the pics of bucks that I got using the blocks over the last month. Pike
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/trai...u-07-09-a.html
Dont worry about which benefits the deer etc. because other than providing the herd with a source of salt there is no mineral recipe, block, rock, lick, jam etc. that does anything for them.
Below is a link to the pics of bucks that I got using the blocks over the last month. Pike
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/trai...u-07-09-a.html
Last edited by J Pike; 07-12-2009 at 02:40 PM.
07-13-2009, 09:54 AM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,186
I respectfully disagree with J. Pike.
Based upon published research by several of the nation's top ag schools, such as Penn. St., LSU, Miss. St. Texas A&M, Clemson, etc. deer do get practically no nutritional benefit from NaCl only. But minerals high in calcium and/or useable phosphates are necessary for good health. Most comes from natural forbs. However using supplemental minerals such as Dicalcium Phosphate and other supplements which are high in useable calcium and phosohates, mixed with NaCl or Trace Mineral Salt will not only attract deer to ytour place but also help all game animals that use the licks with bone strength, calcium loss during pregnancy and strees during lactation. On the land I hunt, we have about 30 mineral lick areas and troughs located around the 3500 or so acres. We put out on the average about 1500# of NaCl and 750# of Di-Cal and/or hi-cal minerals each year. Have for well over a decade. We have trail camera photos of deer, coyotes, and racoons munching on this mix. Can I prove that these critters are better off? Nope ... but I am pretty certain from the improvement in antler mass, and the size of the does and fawns that we are doing some good as well as attracting them to the area.
Based upon published research by several of the nation's top ag schools, such as Penn. St., LSU, Miss. St. Texas A&M, Clemson, etc. deer do get practically no nutritional benefit from NaCl only. But minerals high in calcium and/or useable phosphates are necessary for good health. Most comes from natural forbs. However using supplemental minerals such as Dicalcium Phosphate and other supplements which are high in useable calcium and phosohates, mixed with NaCl or Trace Mineral Salt will not only attract deer to ytour place but also help all game animals that use the licks with bone strength, calcium loss during pregnancy and strees during lactation. On the land I hunt, we have about 30 mineral lick areas and troughs located around the 3500 or so acres. We put out on the average about 1500# of NaCl and 750# of Di-Cal and/or hi-cal minerals each year. Have for well over a decade. We have trail camera photos of deer, coyotes, and racoons munching on this mix. Can I prove that these critters are better off? Nope ... but I am pretty certain from the improvement in antler mass, and the size of the does and fawns that we are doing some good as well as attracting them to the area.
07-13-2009, 01:19 PM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, PA.
Posts: 1,313
Mojo, There has been numerous studies done over the years and to date not one has shown any benefit (other than providing a source of salt) from mineral supplements.
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 said in an article on this subject, who by the way is not only a well respected biologist but an 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."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "
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 said in an article on this subject, who by the way is not only a well respected biologist but an 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."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "
