I think we are on the same page.

With timed feeders to make it work correctly you need several things IMO. You need to have good habitat that can support the deer well enough on average rainfall. You need to know how many deer are eating at a feeder. You need to be able to adjust your feeding rates throughout the year based on rainfall or lack of, this one is the key. IME I was two weeks slower at seeing the increased protein consumption when I was feeding free-choice. Feeding the same amount 24/7/365 is not doing the best for your herd. When they need it the worst you are limiting them and when it is good they are getting the same amount if they eat it or not. This all falls back to your habitat and CC. Not many ranches are within CC and have really good habitat. Then you throw in a couple of protein hogs that dominate the trough and eat all the feed. They are usually the biggest bodied 120 class 8 point in that area. He will keep all the rest of the deer off the trough till he and his group are done or eat all the feed. I have seen timered feeders work very well on a couple of ranches that had low deer densities, good livestock grazing practices and really excellent habitat.

We use the Ballinger Feed store and use a Feed from San Angelo. BC23. Deer love it and I have seen an improvement every year. Been a good feed for us.

Many good opinions and comments. Each being right in their own way. For me, timed feeders work best because of a number of factors that make free choice ineffective. Such as cattle and hogs that will decimate a free choice setup, remoteness of ranch and my inability to be there every week, and financial considerations that make a $2000-$3000 a month feed bill not practical.

Through nearly a 24x7 cam/video monitoring I have a very good idea of what deer come to the various feeders, how long they stay, and then pattern of when. My deer for the most part are very regular. This group of does, this group of bucks, these singleton bucks, etc. So - for me personally - the Lamco works great and keeps a REGULAR and CONSISTENT supplemental feeding - along with calcium/phosphorous minerals. Going into my fifth year now and I believe it is now making a difference.

My point is - a good feeding program is really more complicated and requires more effort and commitment than most folks realize or are willing to do. There is no one-plan-fits-all and must be customized to the specific ranch, deer herd, weather, etc and other factors - and can often require tweaking from year to year and season to season.

I learn more every year, and especially since I got associated with QDMA. I don't have all the answers, and I have made mistakes. My program might not be perfect, but it is showing results - for me.

But one thing I can say with 100% certainty: a protien program is NOT just as simple and "catch all" as putting up a free choice feeder and dumping 16% protien in it. So when I hear someone quote that standard line "16% feed is all a deer needs/uses" ...

True story. Just two weeks ago I was talking to a friend who has a nicely managed HF near Lohn. A really beautiful place with WT, axis, and a few Blackbuck. The ranch is in such good condition that he doesn't have to feed year round - and every deer I've seen there is "fat and healthy".

He had some hunters come out and they brought some high density protien pellets/cubes/sweet feed to use as an attractant during their weekend hunt.

The next week my friend found four dead deer. Necroposy with the biologist determined their stomach/gut burst from overdosing on the high density feed. Four deer is all they FOUND, but there may be others back in the brush undiscovered yet.

I only post this here as an example that mistakes in feeding can have severe reprocussions to the herd. More or unrestricted protien is not always a good thing.

Something is not right with this to me. "fat and healthy" deer don't just eat something till it kills them unless they are starving to death or under stress(bad ice, snow and cold temps???). Were these deer all Blackbuck or Axis or WT or combo of all? Adult deer know when eating something new that the amount they are eating is enough. Gonna have to call on the feed killing those deer from what little is posted. 99.99% of the time when an animal dies, feed gets the blame. Usually long term mismanagement is going to be the real underlying issue.

StxRanchman, it not BS - actually the guy is sometimes here on THF under the handle 'LeadSh2', his name is Ron - his ranch is Lohn Oak Ranch.

From what I understand from talking to him, they were high density pellets/cubes and when they drank water, it expanded and created ruptures.

Deer are animals and are individuals. They sometimes like the taste of certain things over other foods and can "binge", just like people. Haven't you ever eaten too many salsa and chips before a meal? Or "pigged out" at thanksgiving or on a favorite food to the point you feel uncomfortable later? Or eaten something that was quite healthy for you or didn't agree with you? Well, animals can do that too!

I believe all four were WT does (but I am not completely sure). I can assure you, his ranch is well managed - accusations of long term mismanagement are way out of line here.

Like I posted above, fat and healthy adult deer don't pig out on something they have not eaten before unless they are stressed and/or in bad weather. I have seen young deer eating to many acorns that died have rumen/stomach problems. This in a ranches where those younger deer have never seen an acorn(acorn crops were sporadic). I am still going say that the feed they ate is probably not the main reason they died, there is some other underlying factor that would have been the trigger. I also think that there are more key details to this that are being left out. You are highlighting one aspect to back up your statement about more feed being a bad thing.
As far as me say this ranch was mismanaged..this is what I said " 99.99% of the time when an animal dies, feed gets the blame. Usually long term mismanagement is going to be the real underlying issue." It is a general statement from seeing issues first hand in the past that I stand behind.

I don't feed protein on my place and want to. I have NO complaints on my property with antler/body size however, if I can do something to improve and keep more animals on my place why not, right. I'm curious what the ROI is? How long before you see results with body and antler size? I'm not looking for instant gratification just curious.

I am wondering what is the approximate cost to get a WT Buck to say 5 years. This being in the Hill Country on a place that is a little above CC. If you can sell that Deer and still make somewhat of a profit. Is it more profitable to do no supplemental feeding and sell them at a price most can afford? Doing no feeding and selling more or feeding and selling less. Or is there more profit in getting a larger Buck and narrowing down the amount of hunters you may or may not get? I realize there are a lot of variables in this. Amount of total deer, amount of does to bucks, amount of protein that will be eaten by non-deer animals. I have seen this year that there seems to be more places advertising for hunters to hunt large bucks. And to me at least it seems to be some pressure on that type market.

Steve, you might be right. I will be seeing Ron this weekend at the show, and I'll get more details - using anecdotal examples like this are probably a poor way to make a point since we may never know the EXACT causes - but I can assure you it wasn't mismanagement - this guy and his partner take good care of their property and animals.

But I will respectfully disagree about animals pigging out. And at the risk of making the same mistake again, give an anecdotal example - but this is personally observed. A few years ago I experimented with trying different "attractants" for axis. I put out different fruits and veggies, and even spare halloween pumpkins. I spent many hours watching from the blind and video from cams to see reactions.

Mostly what you said was true - but there were some very notable exceptions. I found that axis could not get enough of the mango - especially very ripe ones. They DEFINITELY showed a preference for them and would on many occasions eat every scrap of mango before touching anything else. Not every axis, but a lot of them. Conversely, the WT never really showed a preference for anything and were very timid about new feed - but a few deer immediately took to new things without hesitation. One deer went absolutely nuts over the pumpkins - like it was crack cocaine - she would STOMP the pumpkins to bits and eat all she could - even to the point where she would sit down and rest because her belly so full. Just this one deer - the others didn't seem to like it much. Another instance a young buck seems to have a particular fondness for apples.

So it doesn't surprise me at all, that at sweet feed - like Chaffhaye, which is sprayed with molasses - could potentially cause a few deer to binge eat on first encounter. And it doesn't surprise me that it was doe - as I have also seen bred/pregnant does get ravenous strange cravings.

Armalite/DonK - I know quite a few breeders that are friends. They do it because they want/love to do it - not many get rich doing it from what I've heard them tell me - but I don't see their bank statements.

In this binge/overeating experiment you videoed, how many deer did you find dead after the experiment was over?
I never said that deer won't binge eat. Bucks post rut can binge eat for days. I had a friend who had taken 5 of his breeder bucks in Jan. after the rut and put them in a pen together(antlers were cut off). He was leaving for a convention for a week and told his worker to put the bucks a full 50# bag of protein in their trough everyday. When he got back after 7 days the first afternoon he checked his deer pens and noticed the bucks were out of feed. He confronted the worker and asked why the bucks had no feed? Worker said he put a 50# bag in the pen every morning and they ate it all. 5 buck eating 50# of feed per day for a week. They continued for 3 more days then backed off to a normal amount. That is what would be called binge eating, correct? Not one buck died from this binge eating of a protein feed ration.
If the "food source" was eaten by other animals that did not die, how can it be blamed for selecting a few only? If the animals died the next week, did they find them all instant they died? Did they walk around for a week all bloated and then fall over dead? If they found them a week later, how long had they been dead? All animals usually start to bloat and swell up a short time after death.
I will stand by my general statement about people blaming feed for killing deer first when it is usually mismanagement(some other issue that they caused or put the animals under). Again, some detail is being left out or overlooked that was a cause.

For me at least the only animals I have known that would eat until it sometimes caused death was sheep. Everything else may eat a lot at first but then get to a point where they would only eat a certain amount. Cows, goats whatever. When you first start them on a feeding program they will devour the feed. Then after a week or so they settle down and actually start leaving some and then you can see how much to actually feed them.

Well, you make a good point. I simply cannot say because I was not there and did not witness myself. Look, your knowledge and expertise is beyond reproach - always value your comments. Not trying to argue with you, nor challenge your comments with my much more meager experience.

On my alternative food experiment - I did not notice any deer dead, but could have happened and I just didn't find them.

But I did see one get "sick" - ate some cantaloupe I believe it was - and started hacking up something.

I think we are getting off the point I was trying to make though. My point was/is : "percentage of protein" and "protein feeding program" is not as cut-and-dried as is commonly espoused. There are appropriate times and places for "percentages" over 16%, sometimes well over that - and those feeds are made because of those scenarios. To say "deer don't need/use more than 16% protein" is a very simplistic statement that can be wrong in some circumstances. Moreover, a true and proper supplemental feeding program needs to be tailored to the specific ranch and circumstances. I think we can agree on that?'

Frankly, in my OPINION - way too many folks supplemental feeding programs are little more than attractants and their results (and belief in their program) is wishful thinking. Guys that are doing it right - and there ARE folks doing it right - have a program that is custom-tailored, is tweaked during the year based upon changing conditions, and is usually very expensive.

The guys that simply put up one or two 300lb free-choice feeders, and dump 16% protein in it, on their low fence deer lease and walk away thinking they are making a difference - probably aren't making much of a difference. But if it gives them a feel-good satisfaction, then who I am to argue?

I am one to ask questions if I feel something is left out to see if what someone is telling me is the truth. I do not take it personal when I am questioned about something and I expect the same. I want to know about something like this if it is true. I call it experience, you learn from your or someone else's mistakes. If those deer died from eating to much then I want to know what it was they were eating, how much of it they ate, how soon after eating they died, what the weather conditions were like, etc so if I encounter in the future I can tell right away what happened.
I agree on the protein %. I have always said that I think deer do better on 20% protein vs 16% IME. I have also fed 24% protein to deer on 3 different ranches. 2 had positive results and 1 did not. 1 that had positive results and 1 that did not and they only had a HF fenceline separating them(that had been up for less than 3 yrs). Same native deer genetics on both ranches. Same habitat, water situation, age classes etc just one had better deer. Now I am more of a fan of well made 20% pellet with the best mineral package available for my area.
For supplemental feeding to be successful it must be available to all deer 24/7/365/forever and it needs to be a supplement. It can still be an attractant on a successful feeding program. I have seen guys who had fed a LF ranch for 3 yrs 24/7 want to stop feeding in Nov due to the fact they thought the deer were nocturnal based off the TC pics every year from Aug-Oct. They were seeing deer just not all the mature bigger bucks they had on TC. I balked but they owned the ranch. After 2 weeks of being out of feed and seeing hardly any deer now, they could not get feed onto the ranch fast enough for the upcoming weekend. Guess when the deer returned? They were hitting feeders that evening after the feed truck left. Success with feed is not only gauged in antler size or how healthy the deer are. If a hunter kills a great deer (by his standards) and feeds, was he successful? I have been feeding free choice 24/7 for 3 yrs and 4 months now. I have had only 4 bucks total killed that were mature shooters in that time frame over the 4 hunting seasons. Only 1 was a protein deer his last year and it took him 2 yrs to finally get on it the feed. The rest moved in and were killed due to deer traffic and flow around my protein feeders. Was that a successful feeding program? For me it is. Could those deer have been killed without the feed? Not sure, but what I do know is that I am sure I would not have the number of does or bucks moving in or out without it. I always wonder just how good those bucks could have been if they had access to feed their whole life also or would they have been the same.
I know of guys who put out a feeder and kill their biggest buck to date after the first year. All it takes is the right deer at the right time. Is that the norm? I think it is the exception. One thing I can tell you is that every deer eating protein are getting better nutrition if the habitat and rainfall are below normal. Those few deer will be healthier I would imagine. There daily feeding routine will include the feeder. When the rut starts, I want that routine to be the same since they will attract bucks as they move into feed. Soon the bucks check the feeder on a regular basis. They don't have to eat for it to be successful in attracting them. Did that make a difference to the hunters success or goals when he put the one or two 300# feeders out? That is the same results you are getting with your timered protein feeder. I would think after many years you will see even better results. Are you helping all the deer around your feeder? Not really directly, but I still stand by the fact they could be effected indirectly from less competition for available forage.
Successful feeding programs and RYI are gauged in different ways by those supplementing feed. I consider the money I have spent well worth it and consider it an investment in future years of hunting success for me.

they say 10-20% in antler increase the 1st year if eating protein

Not trying to start an argument, but has anyone personally experienced that on a LF place. If true, it sounds like I should start feeding protein today.

You forgot Labrador Retriever

Well, and who is "they?"

It's PROTEIN, not magic beans.

If a Buck is a 4 point one year he will probably be a 6 or an 8 the next year. So that is a 50% or 100% gain without protein.

I severely doubt that just adding supplemental protein could ever cause a 10%-20% increase in antler development the first year. Im sure someone will disagree with me - but based upon my knowledge and experiences, that just couldn't happen.

However, I did hear about a case (sorry I can't remember details) some years ago where some dude had been feeding protein for a while with meager results and then added minerals (calcium phosphate) based upon some testing, and did get those kind of results immediately the first year.

This I could believe based upon my understanding. Protein doesn't provide the much of the raw materials for antler development, it's more of a benefit of turning the deer into an efficient processing machine - without the essential minerals, a protein program just makes healthy deer. But once you have a healthy deer, adding the minerals to develop the bone will cause the animal to create the best set of antlers he can possibly can. Anyway, this is a simple explanation based upon my understanding.

Something to think about - I read this about animal development - it is an interesting take on things. It was from ONE source, so take it with a grain of salt. It deals with genetics and the expression of the genetics.

The white paper went on to say that genetics are a tricky thing - and while genetics play a big part of things, provide the "potential" - reaching that potential of genetic expression is set early on - perhaps even during gestation. The premise of the theory was that good nutrition in uterus and during the first few months can "set" the metabolic functions of the animal for life. The theory used this an explanation while sometimes genes are expressed, and sometimes they are not. The critical early years of development play a big part.

There were references made to several animals study, including human, where the expression of traits (assumed to be linked to genetics) for obesity, thyroid conditions, etc. were affected by pre-natal care and the first 3-6 months after birth.

In terms of deer - the premise is that the reason why it takes some years for the "program" to work is because good nutrition of the bred does plays a factor - those first deer born "under the program" are the generation that starts showing the full potential of the genetics. While you might get an immediate increate the health of the deer, fawn survival rates, etc. - and some adult deer begin to show better antler development - it is the those first male fawns growing up under the program that show the best expression of their genetics about 3 years later.

If I remember things, they were tracking the male fawns 1st/2nd year antler development from the same set of does/bucks. The male fawn from the same pairings started developing more points/mass after the doe's diet was significantly improved. I don't believe they followed antler development past the 2nd year.

I offer no opinion or validity of this - just relating something interesting I read. If I remember correctly, this was from an archived white paper from QDMA that was referencing a graduate study done at TAMU.

What natural forage are your deer eating any sizeable quantity of that is over 16% protein ?

If increase in protein would not increase antler growth 10-20% the first year, then how do we see growth swings of that much in just one wet year? If we could only duplicate that kind of nutrition/mineral increase in a simple protein pellet form....