Location/Type of Salt/Mineral Lick

I've considered putting either a mineral spot out or a salt lick out to persuade some deer to make a pit stop by some trail cameras in my fields. Now I know it's a bit late to put out a mineral lick for antler growth but in my humble opinion I doubt one or two mineral spots will actually contribute to their growth overall. Maybe in a heavy applied setting but for the amount i'll put out I doubt it will.

So my purpose would be to just have them come stop by for a photography op and then be on there way. I've read where most folks like to put them by water and in secluded areas. Has anyone put them in or around a field edge? This is the primary place i'm thinking of applying mine. Or should I stick it a couple feet in the woods for more comfort?

If I used mineral sites, I was going to use Monster Raxx, and for the salt lick I was just going to throw out an ole cow licking salt block from my local ag-store. Which do you prefer? Why?

 

I have 3 mineral sites that are basically on field edges, but they are in secluded areas if that makes sense. They all get plenty of activity. As long as they are not out in the open and are not within view of roads or heavy use areas you should be ok. My thought process on this is to get the deer used to walking those edges.

I personally have been there done that with just about anything you can imagine. salt block, mineral block, stock salt, trace mineral, deer cane...... On and on. They all attract deer. The question should really be what is your goal. Are you trying to manage your deer herd or are you trying to get pictures of deer and possibly get a shot at one over the site? You have to answer that for yourself. IF you are trying to manage your herd, do the research and see where it leads you. I have done it and it lead me to Monster Raxx. Monster Raxx gives the deer the minerals their bodies need in the ratios they need them. Since the deer's body stores the minerals, they will be available in times on need like lactating for does and antler growth for bucks. The key difference between Monster Raxx and it's competition is the percentage of salt used. Monster Raxx is a low salt mineral supplement. The competition is a salt attractant.

 

I could copy and paste Sky's comment and it would be 100% truthful for myself as well.

 

As an avid hunter and outdoors men my goal is always to produce a healthier and stronger herd. Maybe i'll have to run a test to see if my deer prefer and hit the Monster Raxx harder and more persistent than a regular salt lick.

The first bean field that I plan to put the lick has a road quite close, 150 yards away, they might feel uneasy about hitting a lick on the edge of this field so i'll push it back into the woods a little were I have a feeder to give them a more secluded feeling. I appreciate the help fellers.

 

This may not be popular opinion around here, but I don't feel that minerals are very beneficial. Everyone has this idea that minerals produce big bucks, but research has proven otherwise. I'd put the cheapest salt out there to get the deer there for a photo op. Here's where I found the research.
http://www.qdma.com/articles/minerals-for-whitetails


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

For me it all comes down to cost. Could minerals help deer? Yes. But for me it makes more sense to buy cheap trace mineral salt and use the money I would have spent on deer minerals to plant additional food plots. Getting pictures is the main reason I use minerals anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In order for a buck to produce a big set of antlers he needs age and genetics, not minerals. Some of the biggest whitetails of all time were back before minerals were being placed out. You aren't going to get a 200 inch deer at a young age in the wild.

 

That's what I based my opinion on as well. I bought 2 trace mineral salt licks for $12 last night. It's more pocket friendly than a back of monster raxx. But I will still have to try monster raxx atleast once to see if the deer hit it harder than the trace mineral.

 

Here is the deal IMO.. Healthy deer ----equal deer that reach their potential. Be that a buck or a doe.

Minerals like Monster Raxx makes a difference in health.. This make a difference in rack size, but not to the extent maybe you think it should.

We have had EHD hit all around us the last several years. We have found ZERO dead deer during this time on our properties. I attribute this to minerals and vitamins the deer are getting from our mineral site....

My best sets for mineral sites is a combination of a red mineral block and a monthly dose of Monster Raxx or Vita Rack.

 

BHH nailed it. Everyone I ever have this discussion with that are against true mineral supplementation products (yes similar to MonsterRaxx *disclaimer bahaha!)....seem to have some kind of cynicism towards mineral companies or the big rack mindset....or they quote studies done that supposedly prove minerals do nothing for antler growth.

I like BHH realize though that mineral supplementation are not going to simply spring an extra 5, 10, 20, 30 inches on top of a deer's head but proper mineral intake is without a doubt going to encourage a healthier deer overall...which allows the deer the ability to reach it's potential more abundantly and dare I say faster. <---That doesn't take a study to prove that is common logic.

As an example I was way overweight a couple years back...athletically built and active always but I had the pounds on me for sure. Well doctors and nutritionists always pointed to the calorie intake and deficit concept....after half a year of that approach plus work out I was only 20 pounds lighter and gave up put the weight back on quickly....

....then I changed my approach. Instead of counting calories I begin attempting to eat 100% fruit, veggies, cut out breads nearly completely and ate only non-red meat for awhile (limiting meat intake tremendously). I wouldn't keep track of what or how much I would eat I would simply eat if I was hungry....as long as it was a fruit or vegetable. The idea behind this style of eating was to feed my body healthier foods, not processed crap and the weight just shed off...even weeks I wouldn't hit the cardio I would still lose 2 or 3 pounds.

It all boiled down to the nutritional value I was in taking made my body simply healthier...and deer minerals would do the same thing. While you may not necessarily see it in increased antler mass....the skeletal structure, skin and hide health, hoof health, lactation capabilities, fawn development and growth are all things which will increase due to the in taking of minerals through supplemental mineral sites.

 

Bingo. Its about their overall health. Certainly genetics are the #1 key, nobody is going to argue that point. But, even with the best genetics, if the correct mix of minerals are not available, the deer cannot reach it's full potential. Those 200+ bucks are finding their minerals, whether it's from a mineral site or through their local environment. There's no magic pill, you can't turn a 100" 3.5 year old into a 200" 4.5 year old. I personally believe you can allow that deer to reach it's full potential by having the correct minerals available. Growing antler or lactating takes a toll on their bodies, just like rutting and harsh winters do. Having a mineral site is one way that we can help these deer get through those stressful times each year and be healthy and ready for the next stressful time.

 

I can tell ya right now...I'd give anything to have Sky and BHH as neighbor's to property I hunt or own

 

Some of our mineral licks are less than 100 yds off the road and the deer are there 1.5 hours before sun down.

 

I would never say it's too late for deer to consume minerals and it not benefiting the deer THIS year. The sooner you get it in a place for them to start consuming the sooner that deer starts getting those minerals while those antlers are growing and the does are still lactating. You can go the salt block route and do camera surveys but IMO you might as well be putting something down that will benefit them for years to come. If you are completely against buying a name brand mineral specifically formulated for deer and added nutrition then IMO free range/bagged mineral would be what I would turn to before throwing out a salt block. At least they may provide something of value. For me I've been through all of this in the past, trying to take the cheapest route to accomplish the same thing. However after years of doing it on the cheap I also found there are much better solutions out there, you just have to weigh out how much you are willing to spend on something that (IMO) has been proven to work. Not trying to sound like a commercial or a continued advertisement but I also choose Monster RAXX.

 

I hear what yall are saying, makes sense. More abundance of minerals and vitamins = healthier deer. 100% agree. More or less 5 pit-stops that I cut out each month to McD's = 1 bag of Monster Raxx. That's a good trade off for me.

I have a corn feeder in the woods a couple yards from a bean field to give more seclusion for deer's comfort. Have yall tried putting a mineral lick site at a corn feeding area? I can't imagine they would care much, they make it a habit to stop by and scavenge for corn before hitting the field. Has anyone seen negative results from this?

 

I believe mineral helps as well. Healthier does = healthier fawns and those fawns will hit the ground running and have better chances of reaching 100% potential


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Can you prove that the minerals are the sole responsibility for that?

 

Not sure where I come across as cynical, I just shared an opinion. I definitely see what you are saying about the nutrition, but there is also a point where the body gets too many minerals, and it does nothing at all, or harms the body. The study that I quoted in the QDMA article, basically said, "IF you have a nutritional deficiency in your area, minerals can help." That being said, why not just use salt licks for your cameras, and if you have a nutritional deficiency, plant food plots? You get more bang for your buck that way by a long shot.

 

Can you not?

Jeez IMO means just that..

 

Can you prove that the minerals don't provide what he stated?