Deer feeding may be worthwhile, research shows

AUSTIN, Texas — Research by a graduate student at Texas A&M University at Kingsville shows that wild plant communities do change some when deer receive supplemental feed.

In addition, deer body weights, antler growth and fawn survival receive a boost from extra feed, especially in the form of protein pellets, the study shows.

Since those very things, especially the antler growth, are what landowners and deer managers want, supplemental feed is probably going to be around a while.

"All indications are that white-tailed deer in arid regions of Texas respond positively to supplemental feed in fawn production, fawn growth rates, mature body weights and antler size," said Dave Hewitt, who holds the Stuart Stedman Chair in White-tailed Deer Research at Texas A&M at Kingsville.

Hewitt, who works in the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, oversaw the research by doctoral student Eric Grahmann, who looked at deer feeding and plant response in Webb County.

"These findings suggest deer are often limited by nutrition in arid regions and explains the vast resources being invested in supplementing deer. So, from the deer side, supplementation appears to 'be worth it,' " Hewitt said.

One downside to supplemental feed, at least to its detractors, always has been that deer with extra food on the table would then concentrate on the highest quality plants and ignore less palatable ones, thus creating an imbalance in the plant community.

Hewitt said there was some truth to that notion but that all the deer in the study, including deer in controlled areas, ignored less palatable plants, whether they had protein to eat or not.

What that seems to mean is that unless they're starving, whitetails will get their nutrition from the best and most efficient sources — man-made or natural — and they'll ignore the stuff that's mostly filler.

That leaves us with two questions: Is supplemental feeding worth the cost? And what is the impact of it long-term?

"Financially, I am skeptical whether a landowner can recoup expenses of feeding, but I expect the decision to feed is rarely made for financial reasons. From a deer-productivity standpoint, feeding is probably worth it," Hewitt said.

"From a vegetation standpoint, the subtle changes we have detected thus far need to be considered," Hewitt said, "but I don't feel that in five to 10 years, the changes will be large enough to be detrimental, or even grossly noticeable, providing that deer density remains appropriate."

Hewitt did point out that supplemental feeding, which generally takes place behind high fences, leads to better fawn and adult survival, and that means larger populations that must be controlled. Landowners must recognize that deer density then becomes the main factor in the quality of deer on any given ranch.

Mike Leggett writes for the Austin American-Statesman. E-mail: mleggett(at)statesman.com