Sure i'll take your word for it. I was basically joking about the liquid part . The point is, natural licks are hardly the most efficient way for deer to get micronutrients, however, it's been proven in research that natural licks make a difference so by default anyway they can get minerals makes a difference. If you want to go buy granular..good for you. All I'm saying is your not wrong if you want to use blocks instead (I do).

BA, I'll go for that. Some minerals are better than none.

Are any of you hunters worried about Chronic Wasting Disease? We have been told that deer get CWD from other deer and from the ground. So I was told that if I had had deer in or around my hunting lease that mineral sites would not be a good ideal. Does anyone have anything to add to that? But I have been thinking about using minerals this year, I read that it is better to put the minerls into some sort of coverd trough where you can mix your minerals with food. Please help!!!!

Anytime you put something (like licks or feeders) out on your property that increases the chance that deer are going to come into contact with one anoter, then obviously disease can spread faster.

Interestingly, high levels of manganese and extremely low levels of copper in deer brain tissue have been found when CWD outbreaks are about to occur. Researchers are exploring any connection between CWD and mineral licks but I'm pretty sure they aren't to the cause...probably a vector but not the cause.

i read they was getting it from the ground posibaly. and where the buffalo used to rome. mainly midwest. and from pened deer that got loose. i like mineral licks so whatever u want to say. aint goin to change my mind.

I was answering his question. I wasn't telling you or anyone to not use mineral licks. I've read the research and I'm simply repeating what I've read. I don't think there is any need for your adversarial tone with me.

The mineral licks I use that I put in an earler post on this thread, I found on another disccusion board. The person who posted this put in his post that the MDC (missouri department of conservation) recommends it. I have a friend who works for the MDC and I had her hookme up with a department biologist. After talking with him what you are posting is correct to some extent.

What the bioligist told me is when a deer get minerial defficiant they will search for minerials in the dirt. they have a natural instinct to find the most mineral efficiant spots on the ground. This is why mineral licks are so popular. I have six licks on one farm and 2 on the other. I have licks that are not used that often and licks that are used on the dailey bases. The bioligst told me that the licks will be used more heavely when bucks are growing there racks, right after the rut (when bucks have depleted there bodies of just about everything), and when does are producing milk. This is why they they use them more heavily certain times of the year over others.

The bioligist also told me that salt has no nutritonal value to a deer what so ever. Salt is used as flavor and to draw the deer in. The trace minerial and di-cal are what is providing the deer nutrition. He also told me that most commercial brands of minerals do not put enough calcium and phosphate in there mixes to affect rack growth. This is why they reccomend so much be put in the ground at once.

Here is how the bioligist broke it down for me:

100 LBS stock salt used for taste only
200 LBS unmedicated trace minerial - to give the deer the minerals they are not getting from food source
100 LBS Di- Cal Dicalcium phosphate - for rack building and milk production. This is also what the biolgist told me was what the commercial stuff did not give enough of.

All of these [for those of you that asked in earler post] can be bought at he local MFA or most feed stores for about $20-$25 I think this beets the commercial prices by a long shot

The bioligst also reccomends that use use all 400 LBS to 1 lick. You will put it in and replace after 6 months the first time and then yearly after that.

My personal opinion is I don't hunt over the mineral licks I have out, these are there strictly for the nutrition of the herd.

Now the newer commercial stuff may have the exact same stuff that I am using Some may be better, but I have good luck with this stuff and am starting to see a difference in the herd after 3 years of use. Whether it is directly realated to the minerals or not this is what I am sticking with.

Sorry for long post guys.

I'm not sure what this means. It's common knowledge that virtually every animal requires sodium just like we do. They may not need sodium to increase rack size etc but saying it has no value at all is totally false.

The way I understood it was that the sodium content they get from this lick is coming frome the trace mineral and not the stock salt. They would be getting the same nutritional value with or with out the salt.

SALT ??? Intersting and informative articles at www.saltinstitute.org