# Sugar beets, a deterrent to TB?



## Munsterlndr

Some more info regarding Ed's example of honey used to dress wounds as an example and the presumption that the sugar content in sugar beets might have the similar anti-bacterial properties as honey. Note that this particular study was not dealing with either M. Bovis or human tuberculosis, as neither are usually an issue with topical contamination of wounds or burns but the results pertaining to the prophylactic nature of sugar as an anti-bacterial are still relevant to this issue. These results also indicate that even honey, which appears to have substantially more anti-bacterial qualities than sugar does, is still ineffective in inhibiting the growth of certain bacterias. Whether M. Bovis or M. Tuberculosis is one of those bacterias, we don't know but the previous study that I posted certainly indicated that tuberculosis bacteria is not inhibited by the presence of some sugars and in fact utilizes some sugars in their normal function. 

_"Growth inhibition was complete in the media containing 100%, partial in media containing 50% and no inhibition was produced by 20% honey. Unprocessed honey inhibited most of the fungi and bacteria causing wound infection and surgical infection except Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Clostridium oedematiens. Apart from Streptococcus pyogenes which is only moderately inhibited, *golden syrup, a sugar syrup with similar physical properties as honey, did not inhibit any of the bacteria or fungi tested,* demonstrating that honey is superior to any hypertonic sugar solution in antimicrobial activity. Honey is thus an ideal topical wound dressing agent in surgical infections, burns and wound infections." _*The antimicrobial spectrum of honey and its clinical significance* -(Efam & Iwara)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/qh855q55512k1263/?p=8d7600709a864540b4fd39f6cf5ff1d4&pi=0


----------



## Munsterlndr

Ed Spin04 said:


> That's not research, that's a selective paragraph from a study involving a human modified sugar compound in an entirly differant medium. Sorry, I'm not as dumb as you wish mnstr. You tried to cover yourself by saying, "IT WOULD APPEAR". Please, with your so called research skills, explain why the TB bacteria lives only two weeks on a sugar beet but up to 7 months on a potato, (both of which are composed mainly of carbohydrates). This time stay on the right subject. It would appear, that no one posting so far has the necessary experience to answer my orginal question. So, I ask that only those with real knowledge in this subject post.


Ed, sorry but that information was certainly the result of a legitimate scientific study. It demonstrates that M. tuberculosis is not inhibited in the presence of some types of sugar and in fact utilizes sugar in the normal course of it's transmission. Yes, it is dealing with M. Tuberculosis (human) instead of M. Bovis (bovine) but the two are closely related and humans can also become infected with M. Bovis, so there is no species barrier. Is it a total contradiction to your "theory" about sugar beets? Nope and I did not say it was but it is credible evidence that at least calls into question your assumptions about sugar beets and TB. An assumption, I might add that you have provided not a speck of supporting evidence to validate. Why do sugar beets have a shorter shelf life for harboring viable bacteria then starches with a lower sugar content? I'm sure that the sugar content has something to do with it. We are all aware that sugar has been used as a preservative for some time. It's a huge leap of faith, however, to then guess and say that sugar beets are incapable of being a vector for the transmission of disease. It's apparent that you are seemingly desperate to prove that sugar beets are not a threat for disease transmission, despite the preponderance of evidence which would contradict that notion. I wonder why that is?


----------



## Munsterlndr

Ok, after reading a number of articles, I think I have a better understanding of why sugar is used as a preservative. Due to it's osmotic quality, sugar keeps some bacterias from multiplying and spreading. Typically when these bacterias multiply and spread they result in food spoilage. By limiting the multiplication of the bacteria, the food is kept from spoiling. The sugar does not kill the original bacteria that comes into contact with the medium it just inhibits it's growth and replication. 

In the case of M. bovis and it's spread, it would seem that if the original bacteria that is deposited on the medium remains viable for a period of time, in the case of sugar beets up to two weeks (Palmer & Whipple) that the fact that the sugar content might inhibit it's replication is really pretty much immaterial. If the original quantity of bacteria spread through a cough or a sneeze or saliva was enough to infect another deer had it been standing next to the infected deer, it's seems reasonable to assume that the original quantity lodged on the surface of a sugar beet or any other agricultural product would also be enough to spread the disease if another deer comes into contact with it. Two weeks seems like plenty of time for multiple deer to come into contact with an infected beet.


----------



## William H Bonney

Munsterlndr said:


> ,,,,,. It's apparent that you are seemingly desperate to prove that sugar beets are not a threat for disease transmission, despite the preponderance of evidence which would contradict that notion. I wonder why that is?


Oh, oh, oh, me, me,, oh, can I answer this one???:lol:......


----------



## beer and nuts

> Oh, oh, oh, me, me,, oh, can I answer this one???


 May hand was up first, pick me, pick me, pick me....

My carrot tree also has a high sugar content in its fruits, and I thought apples had a high natural sugar content. 

Just a quick note: My dad had surgery last week and they called in Dr. Betty Crooker for the anthesia(sp?), she used a grest recipe of peanut brittle!!


----------



## William H Bonney

beer and nuts said:


> May hand was up first, pick me, pick me, pick me....
> 
> My carrot tree also has a high sugar content in its fruits, and I thought apples had a high natural sugar content.
> 
> Just a quick note: My dad had surgery last week and they called in Dr. Betty Crooker for the anthesia(sp?), she used a grest recipe of peanut brittle!!


My sister is an anestethist(sp.),, they usually call Bobby Flay to button things up,,, if he's not around, they can always get a hold of Alton Brown.


----------



## Anderson

Ed, You posted this topic on a public forum. To now request, that only those experienced enough in your opinion, to post to this public topic is unfortunate. It appears you are looking for a fight and not an open discussion. My humble suggestion is: Pm the members that you want to argue with and the rest of us don't need to see your catfight. Now that I have flamed... I will be silent on this thread.

Sincerely,
Tim


----------



## Munsterlndr

Ed, if your theory that the sugar content in sugar beets is enough to inhibit the transmission of bacteria, how do you account for the fact that sugar beets are susceptible to bacterial diseases such as bacterial root rot? It seems that the inherent level of sugar in the beet tissue is not enough to stop the spread and infection resulting from psuedomonas or other types of bacteria that cause sugar beet diseases. It also appears that sugar content does not prevent bacterial diseases from affecting other plants that have sugar content levels similar to beets, such as sugar cane, which can suffer from a variety of bacterial infections including Xanthomonas campestris. Unless you dispute the fact that sugar beets can be infected by some bacterial diseases, it seems that you are suggesting that sugar beets don't kill some types of bacteria but will kill M. Bovis. What's your evidence supporting this theory again?


----------



## Guest

Where does anyone pick up that I said ,"TB cannot survive on a sugar beet"? I said that the TB bacteria can only survive two weeks on a sugar beet, while it can survive 7 months on a potato, while both are mainly composed of carbohydrates. That big differance is interesting and that's the point that needs to be researched, the sidestepping and avoding the real issue is rediculous and Anderson wonders why I requested non serious posters to scat. By the way Anderson there was nothing wrong with your first inquisition, while your second I believe is beneath you. I was intending to answer your question of density of sugar beets and could the result be more sugar? The answer is a super resounding YES! Add a serious fetilization program that can increase sugar production big time and who knows? I certainly do not and that is one of my points. We need research to find out if, "Sugar beets, a deterrent to TB?" That title had a question mark, it was not a statement. Mnstr I have been nice to you for some time, you just recieved STRIKE 34! Can't you ever stay on topic? Surely there must be one out there that knows this subject. Can we hear from you?


----------



## Munsterlndr

"Where does someone pick up the idea that I said TB cannot survive on a sugar beet?"

Maybe because you make unsupported statements like this?



Ed Spino4 said:


> By the way, TB bacteria cannot live on or in a sugar beet for more than a few hours. Sugar is a natural antiseptic. and along with other enzemes kills the TB bacteria.


At least we are making a little progress seeing that you now acknowledge that TB can survive for two weeks instead of two hours. 

Here is the problem Ed, you know a great deal about agriculture and about farming. There is no question that you are an expert on food plots and no one disputes that. But when you start talking about the underlying science and biology and chemistry you are clearly completely out of your depth. Unfortunately, you have a large following among food plot devotees and they tend to believe that anything that comes out of your mouth is the gospel truth. I don't think you realize how much harm to the entire food plot community could potentially occur if you continue to push food plots in areas where disease is known to be present and if they are ultimately shown to contribute to the spread of disease. You might want to devote some time to thinking about that prospect before you continue tilting at windmills.


----------



## beer and nuts

> you have a large following among food plot devotees and they tend to believe that anything that comes out of your mouth is the gospel truth.


Baaahaaaaaaabaaaahhaaaaa. They same is true for food plots as well$$$$


----------



## Guest

Your still off topic, mnstr. Tells us why TB can only survive two weeks on a sugar beet but seven months on a potato, and the possible significance of this fact in combating Bovine TB. I know, you can't as well as I can't. The frivolous non serious demeaning content of your posts adds nothing to this serious subject. I know there are some who have the knowledge to shed light, yet they don't. So,I ask that this thread be closed.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Ed, you have finally admitted that viable TB bacteria can survive on Sugar beets for at least two weeks. That TB survives longer on other mediums is really not particularly relevant, the fact that food plots, including those planted with sugar beets could potentially serve as a vector for the spread of TB and other communicable diseases is what is important. In light of that fact, continuing to promote the use of root crops, including sugar beets, in areas where disease is known to be present, starts to border on the irresponsible, if you have a genuine concern for the stewardship of the resource.


----------



## Direwolfe

Salt and sugar are food preservatives because they affect the water activity of the foods. The higher the concentration the less free water to support mold/bacteria growth. E.g. hard candy won't support much growth due to lack of available water. I usually don't trust Wikipedia, but the entry squares with my independant info so:

"For many years researchers tried to equate bacterial growth potential with moisture content. They found that the values were not universal, but specific to each food product. WJ Scott in 1953 first established that it was water activity, not water content that correlated with bacterial growth. It is firmly established that growth of bacteria is inhibited at specific water activity values. FDA regulations for Intermediate Moisture Foods are based on these values.

Lowering the water activity of a food product should not be seen as a kill step. Studies in powdered milk show that viable cells can exist at much lower water activity values but that they will never grow. Over time bacterial levels will decline."

So high sugar levels may inhibit growth but not kill those already present. Perhaps the starch of potatoes does not affect water activity like the sugar of the beets. One problem is that the high concentrations of sugar may not be maintained.The high concentration will diminish in surrounding soil providing food for bacteria. Rain or soil moisture may dilute concentration, encouraging growth. 

We're not talking a cure for cancer here, not even a cure for tb. I would guess its an anomoly caused by high sugar concentration that can't last in the enviroment. You're right Ed, you need a real field study to prove this. Maybe with your connections to QDMA you can have them spring for it.


----------



## Munsterlndr

The ultimate solution to both the issue of Bovine TB in free ranging deer and ultimately CWD is going to be the development of effective oral vaccines. The USDA has programs in place that are currently working on developing oral vaccines for a variety of wildlife diseases with some promising results.

Somewhat ironically, the most effective method for getting free ranging wildlife to ingest the vaccines is the use of bait piles. :lol:


----------



## LyonArmonial

well ed, i think dire answered your question, and let me fling out a little hypothesis as to why the bacterium would stay active for a longer amount of time on a potato.

ok...so the chemical formula for sugar (glucose) is C6-H12-O6...the chemical formula for salt is Na-Cl. the difference with a potato is that it is made of primarily starches (C6-H12-O6 time 100 or more). 

now then...since salt has the smallest structure when dissolved in water (Na+ and Cl- ions), it would seem that you could fit the most in between the water molecules. glucose remains in its form, so it can not fill as many spaces as salt could, but it still does pretty well. starch on the other hand, stays in its long chain, providing the least space used.

the easiest way to think about it is a jar 3/4 full of course dust (represent water). salt is sand, sugar is pebbles, and starch is twigs (use saw grass). which do you think will take up the most space? fill the jar the rest of the way with ONE of your fillers(sand, pebbles, twigs). go through with finer grained supplies once you are finished to compare. 

using that, imagine a bacterium being a pebble. what would it move through the easiest? the hardest?

theres your answer. its not the chemical property of the beet that is inhibiting the growth, its the amount of free space within the system. there is physically no space for the bacteria to go.

i would also like to add that both salt and sugar in high concentrations will pull water molecules from cells in osmosis. food for thought i suppose.


----------



## Guest

OK, thanks Lyon and Dire for your well expressed thoughts on the subject. I'm not well versed with the chemical or biological wonders in our environment and well appreciate your input. I work with a soil scientist/ farmer, Ray Rawson that has been dabbling in associated areas for over 40 years. He farms 12,000 acres in Isabella County. He has cut his fertilizer cost in half with the knowledge he and his small group, (including professors) of fellow soil scientists across the US have acquired. Ray shares some of his secrets with me and boy is it exciting. I have been playing with the concept of sweetening forage for the last few years on my own. Ray has helped me to reach a higher level. With certain fertilizers, applied in a certain way and proper timing we can get plants to stay green, growing and producing sugar well below their normal freeze temperature. 25% of the sugar translocated to the sugar beet root from the green leaves will ooze out into the surrounding soil. The article in the current issue of Woods-N-Water shows a picture of dark green sugar beet leaves on 1-9-2009, which is at least two months past its normal dead brown condition. These leaves are still alive and producing sugar and big time in the dead of winter. I didn't take a test but according to findings of this group the outer surface of the sugar beets and the surrounding soil is saturated with sugar. The reason I bring up this point of sugar saturated soil and the sugar beet surface is because there may be something to it regarding TB and I believe that this should be reseached. I intend to ask our officials to do just that. If more info is out there in this subject, please let us hear, Thanks again guys.


----------



## Swamper

I wonder if sugar beet juice could help in the fight against swine flu?

Swamper


----------



## swampbuck

TB can survive far longer than 2 weeks on a sugar beet.........This is an ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY!!!!

The feeds
examined were alfalfa hay, shelled corn, SUGAR BEETS, apples, carrots, and potatoes. Feeds
were held at 75° F, 46° F, and 0° F for 2 hours, 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, and 7 days and 2
weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks. _Mycobacterium bovis _was
isolated from all feeds stored at all temperatures for 7 days. At 46° F, _M. bovis _survives
on all feeds except carrots for at least 12 weeks and at 0° F, it survives on all feeds for at
least 16 weeks. 

http://www.wildlifedisease.org/Documents/Proceedings/Wyoming_00.pdf


----------



## William H Bonney

I was wondering how long it would take to reference his "own" article in Woods and Water..?? You might as well just pay for the ad Ed,, you can peddled your magic beans on here without "beeting" around the bush..


----------



## ESOX

> Admit it. It'll make your life easier. We'd have more sympathy if you just told us that you were having trouble finding deer without bait. We could actually appreciate that and try to help you.
> 
> If, like me and many, many others, your hunting improved with the ban, the tone would be otherwise.
> 
> If one is on welfare and the checks suddenly stop, of course there'd be anger. We get it. But get over it. Stop beating a ghost horse.
> 
> And most with plots don't hunt over them. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black from guys that can't pattern deer! LOL


My Dad taught me from the beginning one thing that I have always agreed with, hunting deer over bait is as unsporting as hunting ducks over a pile of corn. The name and type of bait pile may have changed since the introduction of the "food plot", but it is still indeed a bait pile. 
Yes, I hunt deer over the acorns that drop from the oaks on my ridge. I hunt deer in an old orchard. I hunt deer in the cousins strawberry field. But I will never, I mean NEVER plant, drop or otherwise artificially induce deer to be somewhere that is simply convenient for me.
If hunting deer over a food plot is rare, why is it so common on TV? I have never once heard someone say "Oh the food plots over yonder, we will hunt here..":lol:
Deer are deer, they aren't very bright. They have needs, their needs and the terrain dictate their habits. I have never have needed anything other than a few bits of grey matter to figure out where and when they would be within my reach without hauling in carrots and beets and leaving my self esteem in the truck..
No comment on the destructive practices espoused by Ed? No commentary on the fouling of the waters? The annihilation of amphibians? Now we are being told that concentrating deer over sugar beets is OK? Please, make the insanity stop.
Ignoring these issues won't make them go away. Insinuating that people who are incensed by the idea that the whitetail is more important than ecological soundness feel that way because they can't bait shows just how indefensible the random usage of fertilizers and herbicides is.


----------



## Liver and Onions

Pinefarm said:


> And most with plots don't hunt over them. /QUOTE]
> 
> So if their bow stand is 10 yds. into the woodlot, they aren't hunting over their plot. Is that right ? Geez Pinefarm.
> 
> L & O


----------



## Pinefarm

"Got a shred of credible evidence to support that statement?"

Since you asked, I do. Not to get snotty about it, but I'm about tired of the misleading that gets attempted here. I have overwhelming anecdotal evidence to the point where it's credible and everyone else here is just guessing.

Putting pencil to paper, I've had contact/conversations with Michigan sportsmen 100,000's of times and sold several $1,000,000 in licenses over the years I worked in other shops and owned BBT, which also happens to be located in the most heavily hunted area in the state. Even moreso, years back. But it's still the most heavily deer hunted area in the state. 

From that overwhemling number of conversations, some as quick as a customer claiming "they're nocturnal and you can't see 'em if you don't bait" as they buy 10 bags of bait to a guy that wanted to shoot the breeze and hung out for an hour and drank coffee as other customers came and went, you can form a very solid base of the mindset of the Michigan deer hunter.

Observation #1 is that most deer hunters are casual hunters and, not to degrade them, are pretty clueless about most things deer, especially enhanced management idea's. The majority, both proven out by MDNR license sales data, store sales and observation, buy their first deer tag(s) on Nov.13-14 and, from my observations, have had very little to no contact with "the deer woods" since the prior mid-November.

Observation #2 is that most deer hunters bash MDNR for anything they do. MDNR is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Everything from the guy complaining that "the DNR wiped out all the deer by 'handing out' all the 'doe permits'" as he buys an antlerless permit himself or when he loudly complains that his DMU is sold out and he can't get an antlerless permit, to complaining that the youth hunt made the deer wise and ruined the entire season. Or that license fee's are way too high, yet there's not enough CO's to do much about poaching. 

Observation #3 is that hunters are often their own worst enemy. From the guy complaining that there's "no big bucks around" while he has a young buck sticking up from the bed of his truck, to the guy complaining that all the baiting has made the deer nocturnal, as he buys bait, or after we stopped selling bait, wants to know where he can find bait for sale.

Observation #4 is (and pertaining to this thread) is that the vast majority of Michigan guys doing QDM/extra nutrition (either timbering and/or plots) are doing so because they want bigger bucks. While attempting QDM will account for a "better" deer herd because herd and female numbers will be lowered, most do so because the cherry on top byproduct will be adult bucks with more antler on their heads. I see nothing wrong with this motivation. The end result is the same. It's akin to a person who makes a large charitable donation because he wants the tax break. It's no more or less noble why he made the donation, as long as the charity gets the same amount of money. The end result is the same. 

Observation #5 is that most guys with plots that I've talked to, quickly figured out that hunting a food plot ruins a food plot as far as a deer draw. Even after dark, if hunted hard enough. Unlike bait that will be totally consumed after dark, even with intense pressure, a deer can take or leave a rye field if pressured enough.

As to the question Esox posed, notice where these TV shows are filmed. Please notify me of any on regular Michigan deer properties. Most are either down south on large private plantations, huge Texas ranches or exclusive Midwest properties. On all of these, human pressure is intensly managed. If a plot hasn't had another hunter within 1/2 mile in the last 2 weeks, one could slip in there to do some filming. And the plot will likely be full of deer, like a private golf course where hunting isn't allowed. 

I've both done TV shows and know several other who have also. Be it fishing or hunting, the point is to make "the host property" look good. If a large southern plantation is where show is being filmed and promoted, that is being done to put that property in the best light. So, if TV celeb A is going to "Trophy Ridge Ranch" at peak rut to film a promotion for your ranch, you set aside a prime couple plots so that celeb A gets lots of deer on film, and, filming over a plot from out of a nice blind, is easier than being in thicker cover in a treestand. Sure, lots to it in thicker cover, but filming over a plot allows for later filming due to light and should get more activity due to expanded zones of visability.

Frankly, I think most so against plots in Michigan aren't thinking about the benefits it brings to neighboring deer, since most Michigan properties are so small, relative to down south or Texas. I think that bias is based on what they see on TV.
But if most knew what goes into either their favorite hunting or fishing show, they might not think so much of their favorite celebs. 
These shows are almost always meant to promote. They promote the product, the celeb and the property they are hunting. Many shows are on those big private clubs and have little interest in teaching anything about deer hunting or management. All they want is deer on film and kills on film, then they can rave about the new fangled product they used to kill said deer. A packaged sales pitch, nothing more.
Not all are like this, but most are.

A good buddy of mine in Chicago films TV ad's for car companies. He said the 3 rules for filming a car ad are "show the car, show the car and show the car". Make the car look so good you want one. Many sponsors of deer hunting shows happen to be seed companies. What do you think the seed sponsor will want more, a host property saying "we use this seed to supplement our nutrition, but we try to stay away from the area of the plot, so we can't show it to you" or do you think they want to see deer eating their product and celebs killing huge, mature bucks off of private managed clubs with their product as the background?
Show the newest model bow, the newest muzzleloader, the newest camo, the newest scent, the newest seed, the newest whatever. There's a reason that you rarely, if ever see a TV celeb using army surplus camo and his perfectly good Golden Eagle or Darton bow from 1988.

Just look at Realtree Roadtrips for example, a show I happen to really like and DVR. In my opinion, you're watching this as much as hunting...
http://www.realtree.com/products/partners.php

Or Drury Outdoors...
http://www.druryoutdoors.com/27/extras/sponsorsaffiliates.php

There's virtually nothing wrong with what these shows do. We still live in America and anyone can start their own show, make a profit and get sponsors to do so. No sponsors, no show, no matter the theme or subject of the show. Cooking shows sell cooking stuff. Imagine that! That's what they do. They're great packaged info-mercials to get you to see fabulous food that you think you can cook at home, if you only had what they had on TV.
Just think of all the deer you could kill with the newest bow and the newest camo. You have to have it!

My suggestion is don't let what you see on TV cloud your judgement on what food plots can do for the average Michigan property owner AND his non-plotting/non-QDM neighbors. A rising tide lifts all boats.

IMHO, being against your neighbor planting a plot is akin to thinking that taxing higher income people even more will somehow make your life better. Yet, those who believe that fail to realize that those people most often work harder, longer, take more risk, already pay the bulk of the taxes and actually provide the jobs that those against them want. I fear spite and envy is the main motivation.


----------



## Munsterlndr

As was pointed out, whether the hunter is hunting over the food plot or on a trail between a sanctuary or a bedding area and the plots is just splitting hairs. The vast majority of plots are planted for the purpose of attracting and holding deer on a given property and to increase the landowners chances of harvesting a deer. Virtually identical to the motivations of most of those who bait. 

Whether the hunter is hunting directly over them or not, food plots are a form of supplemental feeding, just like baiting is. Both have the capacity to concentrate deer and increase the potential for the spread of disease. 

There is no credible scientific evidence that shows that sugar beets in a food plot are immune to creating conditions that facilitate the spread of disease. There is, on the other hand, credible scientific evidence that shows that;

A) M. Bovis can survive for extended periods on sugar beets and other foodstuffs commonly used in both baiting and food plots 

B) That M. Bovis can survive and remain viable in Michigan climactic conditions for periods long enough to facilitate the spread of disease.

C) That there is a significant correlation between increased deer density, supplemental feeding and the prevalence of TB in Michigan. 

The research is pretty clear, the use of either bait or food plots in areas where TB and other communicable diseases are present, increases the chances of the spread of disease and as a result poses an increased threat to the resource. If one is truly interested in being a steward of the resource, do the responsible thing and refrain from both using bait and planting food plots. 

Or you could continue to beat a dead horse and ignore reality and keep pushing an agenda that promotes the selling of books and seed at the expense of the resource.


----------



## beer and nuts

> And most with plots don't hunt over them


 At some point, the more you say it, the more you will believe it. Everybody that I know that creates food plots, hunts on them or around them. But I guess with the landowners Pinefarm talks to(thats great evidence) they don't!? They talk the talk but from being on here and reading between the lines, most on here don't walk the walk. They follow Ed. Spin advice, but when it comes to creating kill plots or "sweetening up" that stand spot, most must look the other way and don't do it!?! Come on Pinefarm, that the most rediculous statement I have seen in awhile.


----------



## Pinefarm

Hunting around a plot isn't hunting over it. Just as hunting near a bedding area isn't like walking into the center of it. 

Saturday is going to be nice and cool. A perfect day for getting out and doing some scouting or hanging a stand. Instead of stewing about the bait ban, it'll be a great day to get out. It'll also be a perfect day to set up a natural ground bow blind off a trail and let it set for 6 months.

I'm off to shoot the bows for a while. See you guys next week. I'm sure you'll still be here, stewing about the bait ban. And likely on 5-8-2010 too. Or will you have dropped out of the sport by then, as some have threatened, since the bait ban killed the deer hunting star?

Sing that in your head for a while. :lol: To the theme of "Video Killed the Radio Star".
The bait ban killed the deer hunting star. 

My guess as is hunters begin to realize their success without bait, possibly for the first time ever, the attitudes will change. It's only in year one that those who could always go back and brag about their multi sightings hunts now had to face their peers with stories of more skunks. That's the real reason for the resentment. It has nothing to do with anything more. Bait made many hunters look like accomplished deer hunters, to themselves and others. 

Now, with the ban, as many deer will still get killed (que Munster for the 100th time with denials of WDNR and MDNR numbers) :lol:
Except now, those with the truely better deer habitat will see more deer and those with marginal deer habitat will see less. They'll still kill deer, but instead of baiting in 10 at a time, they may see only 1. Those with better deer habitat will see more deer and kill more deer. And in the long run, the poor habitat may be allowed to re-grow, since deer aren't baited where they don't belong in large numbers.
There's a reason you find the deer in river bottoms in other Midwest states vs in open pasture or poor habitat. One, bait is banned in many of those states, so you can't bait them to the pasture and two, the deer habitat is in those river bottoms. 

Disease aside, baiting was a type of hunting unionism. IMHO. No matter what extra work was put in by one neighbor, everything would be a watered down even by allowing bait. Those who did nothing except bait on poor habitat could possibly see more deer than those who worked hard to create great year round habitat but didn't bait. Where is the justice in that? And why should deer be drawn to poor habitat, if they didn't want to be there in the first place?
I think that attitude permeates more than just the manufacturing/teaching industry in this state. It's also entreched in what the masses of hunters expect from deer hunting and why Michigan deer hunting is Michigan deer hunting. They somehow have the gall to believe that everything is supposed to be even, regardless of what you put into it.

Well all property isn't even. So don't demand or expect it. If you're unhappy with your property, don't try to bring down the property owner trying to improve his land. Here's a thought, try improving your own. You'll not only enjoy it, you'll get a thrill out of the benefits you bring.

And if you don't own land, what are you complaining about? You have no expense or upkeep other than the same tax dollars everyone else adds to it. You're hunting for free, essentially. Do you honesty expect your hunting to be equal to those who choose to own land and all the responsibilities that comes with it?


----------



## Munsterlndr

Thank you Bob for readily admitting what so many other food plotters are unwilling to admit, that one of their primary objections to baiting has nothing to do with biology but is based on wanting to eliminate any competition for deer that they feel they have "earned" the right to monopolize, by making improvements to their own private land.

_"That's one of the reasons I dislike baiting, if your a landowner who puts lots of time , money and effort into your habitat, doing timber work and maintaining food plots, the neighbor can keep dumping $20 bags of corn and reap your rewards."_ *Dr. Grant Woods*

As usual, your fixation with the baiting issue threatens to pull this thread off topic. Why don't we get back to hearing about how food plots with sugar beets are incapable of spreading disease and other topics of creative fiction.


----------



## ESOX

> those who choose to own land and all the responsibilities that comes with it?


The responsibilities that come with it don't end at paying taxes, they only start there. True stewardship of the land is doing what is best for the wildlife, not trying to find ways to justify maintaining a population that over the natural carrying capacity of the land. 
Not employing practices that will concentrate deer and help spread communicable disease. 
Not spreading fertilizer and herbicides willy-nilly across the wetlands.


----------



## CBMLIFEMEMBER

Munster or Esox just asking has there been any studies that show deer numbers go up because food plots are planted in a region?


----------



## Munsterlndr

CBMLIFEMEMBER said:


> Munster or Esox just asking has there been any studies that show deer numbers go up because food plots are planted in a region?


Some of these quotes reference research that indicates that to be the case. 

_Research conducted in Mississippi has shown that as little as 1 percent of an area planted to both cool- and warm-season forages can increase deer observations, deer density, deer condition, and consequently, hunter success and satisfaction. - Dean Stewart - Planting Warm Season Forages for White-tailed Deer - QDMA Library_

_The planting of food plots is possibly the most implemented and, in most cases, the least needed wildlife management practice in Kentucky.............a disadvantage of food plots is that without adequate cover in close proximity they can concentrate wildlife and expose some species to higher than normal predation levels, especially in winter, thus actually becoming detrimental to certain wildlife populations. Finally, food plots can artificially inflate the number of animals the land can support in a year. - Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife - Food Plots_

_......if you are intent on increasing the number of animals your land can support with food plots, it would be advisable to provide year-round food plantings. While food plots have the potential to increase numbers and size of animals, studies suggest it is risky. - Arkansas food plot manual - Fact vs. Myth_

_A dynamic link occurs between animal population density and parasite density. The more concentrated wildlife are in a given area, the greater the chance for increased parasite contamination of the environment. Several studies from Louisiana show that food plots provide increased nutritional input for wildlife but also cause an increase in animal population. Subsequently, parasite contamination of the food plots increase because of increased animal density. - Dr. Donald H. Bliss, Phd - The Control of Gastro-Intestinal Nematode_
_Parasites of Hoofed Wildlife in North America _

_The original purpose of food plots at Lonetree WMA was to alleviate depredation on adjacent private lands. Depredation has been limited, but the multiyear trend of increased deer numbers is a new concern. A possible consequence of provisioning white-tailed deer with food plots during winter when some starvation would normally occur could be for the population to exceed a threshold above which regulated hunting will be unable to prevent irruptive growth. - Jason R. Smith; Richard A. Sweitzer; William F. Jensen - Diets, movements, and consequences of providing wildlife food plots for white-tailed deer in central North Dakota - 2007 , The Journal of Wildlife Management_

_because the nutritional carrying capacity is very high in the farmland region of Minnesota, deer are in healthy condition at the onset of winter and the need for ancillary food sources is typically unwarranted (M. Grund, MNDNR, personal communication). Food plots provide a concentrated, palatable food source, which results in close interactions among individual deer, and may increase disease transmission (Palmer and Whipple 2006). Furthermore, in much of the forested and transition zones of Minnesota, the deer management goal is to reduce deer densities (Grund 2007, Lenarz 2007). Thus, employing management techniques designed to increase survival and reproduction in these areas is in direct conflict with population management goals (M. Grund, MNDNR, personal communication). - Molly A. Tranel, Wes Bailey, and Kurt Haroldson Functions of Food Plots for Wildlife Management on Minnesotas Wildlife Management Areas. - MDNR publication_


_ It is important to understand what food plots can do, for example: _

_ They can potentially attract more deer to an area._

_ Food plots potentially concentrate deer during the hunting season, especially if the food plot is planted to a green fall or winter crop such as winter wheat or rye. - Food plots for White tailed Deer - University of Purdue - Forestry and Natural Resources Department - Cooperative Extension Service. _

_There are several disadvantages for managers to consider when implementing supplimental feeding via food plots or feeders. These include utilization by non-target wildlife, potential for disease transmission, possible negative impacts on surrounding habitat and possible reduction in natural selection pressure._

_Food plots and feeders concentrate deer, increasing the potential for disease transmission. __White-tailed deer habitat - Dr. Timothy E. Fulbright, J. Alfonso Ortega._


----------



## e. fairbanks

Us MIGHTY HUNTERS want more deer (w/bigger bodies and awesome antler development). How TO ? Better nutrition ! We practice Animal Husbandry. We are Deer Farming. 
Deer are no longer creatures of the forest, they have evolved to become creatures of the agricultural areas, dependent on farm crops for the bulk of their nutrition.
To what governmental agency should we turn to to best advise us on Animal Husbandry and Deer Farming ?


----------



## Munsterlndr

_"The recreational value of a game animal is inverse to the artificiality of its origin and the intensiveness of the management system that produced it." _ *Aldo Leopold*


----------



## rmw

ESOX said:


> My Dad taught me from the beginning one thing that I have always agreed with, hunting deer over bait is as unsporting as hunting ducks over a pile of corn. The name and type of bait pile may have changed since the introduction of the "food plot", but it is still indeed a bait pile.
> Yes, I hunt deer over the acorns that drop from the oaks on my ridge. I hunt deer in an old orchard. I hunt deer in the cousins strawberry field. But I will never, I mean NEVER plant, drop or otherwise artificially induce deer to be somewhere that is simply convenient for me.


So your saying that you let someone else do the work of planting the oaks, soft mast trees and berry patches and you get the benefits . And none of this is natural. Man planted it , unless you consider man to be part of "natural" , then it is all natural . So that would include the bait pile the food plot and the deer drive . If you really want to get rid of all of these man made advantages drop out of a tree and bite your prey on the jugular 
Ever since the old growth timber was logged off in Mi the habitat has been manipulated by man for his benefit


----------



## ESOX

I am fairly certain that no one planted the oaks on my ridge other than possibly a squirrel.
The abandoned orchard I hunt is on who knows what generation of trees or their origin, the farm it is on was established in the 1880's. 
The strawberry farm. the one area I hunt that has mans most active hand in things, just happens to be in the heart of the TB zone, and we have been whacking deer out of there on nuisance permits for the better part of two decades now. Go figure.


----------



## Guest

Monitors, I asked to shut this thread down. I'm serious about the subject of finding answers to combat TB and that's is the intent of this thread. There were a few positve scientific posts and I apprerciate that. Unfortunately the info didn't agree with the negative mindset of a few thread hijackers who want nothing but to post negative personal remarks and degrade the action our own MDNR is doing, (planting wildlife food plots). Obviously the negative naysayers do not have the necessary background to solve the TB question, which is the goal of this thread. Therefore I ask again, Those who cannot contribute positively to the subject of this thread and ramble on off the subject, "Get a life somewhere else". Monitors either direct the non serious posters to bug off or shut this down.


----------



## Justin

Ed, this is a serious question. Wouldn't the best way to combat tb be to not plant anything for deer?


----------



## Munsterlndr

_" A high density of population - The very thing that so far the game manager is usually seeking to obtain - must be set down as the most fundamental condition favorable to disease. High density obviously speeds up transmission and thus increases the virulence of bacterial diseases." _ *Aldo Leopold*, Game Management.

Words of wisdom from the father of the modern conservationist movement. 

Increasing herd density by means of supplemental feeding is counter-productive if combating the spread of disease is the goal. The truth is staring you in the face Ed, you just can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## swampbuck

Heres my suggestion to combat TB. Strengthen and enforce the current TB control measures. Enforce the baiting ban and increase the penaltys significantly. Quit planting food plots on the club lands for the purpose of rebuilding the deer herd. And quit managing the club land for mature bucks which have 2-3 times the prevalance rate.

The DNR'S plan has made a lot of headway if the baiting violaters and QDM type managers would quit screwing with the PROFFESIONAL MANAGERS, maybe they could finish the job

In this case its not supposed to be about big antlers.


----------



## rmw

ESOX said:


> I am fairly certain that no one planted the oaks on my ridge other than possibly a squirrel.
> The abandoned orchard I hunt is on who knows what generation of trees or their origin, the farm it is on was established in the 1880's.
> The strawberry farm. the one area I hunt that has mans most active hand in things, just happens to be in the heart of the TB zone, and we have been whacking deer out of there on nuisance permits for the better part of two decades now. Go figure.


You are still hunting over food that deer like that was planted/put there , by a man . Just because the apple trees you hunt by were planted in the 1880's and the one's someone else hunts by were planted in the 1990's what's the diff.
It is the same as saying that you are being sporting if you use a long bow and maybe a recurve but never a compound .

There's also a pretty good chance your stand of oaks was started by a man since loggers pretty much flattened Mi in the 1800's 

The whole food plot vs deer health argument is a pretty lame one any way . As long as farmers are planting food that deer will eat you will have higher deer densities than what the "natural" habit will support , and a more concentrated population . But if man is part of nature then I guess that sitting out in your elevated , heated box blind over a bean field/pile of sugar beets , with a scoped 7mag while using a range finder and looking at the trail timer camera photo that was just emailed to your cell phone of the buck that is coming your way is just the "natural" evolution of man


----------



## ESOX

> You are still hunting over food that deer like that was planted/put there , by a man . Just because the apple trees you hunt by were planted in the 1880's and the one's someone else hunts by were planted in the 1990's what's the diff.


The differences
These areas were not planted with the intent of concentrating and artificially sustaining the deer population. Deer that are unnaturally congregated spread disease from one to another at a much higher rate.
No one knows if the old orchard was put there by man or wildlife. No one has done anything with it in at least the past 60 years, since the current owners family took over, many of the trees are immature. It is self sustaining.
The oaks on the ridge? As with almost all hardwoods in Michigan, the room for them to grow was afforded by mans logging activity. Whats the point? Do you actually think that people went out and planted all the hardwoods we see now? Or are you saying that they were planted all over the state with the intent of artificially promoting deer populations? 
I don't think that the logging of the pines was intended to greatly expand the whitetails population, but it certainly had that effect.

And finally the strawberries, yes they were planted by man. With the intent of feeding man. They have the effect of concentrating and artificially inflating deer numbers. This is a catch 22, for man must eat as well, but in NO WAY does it justify other activity which serves no other purpose than to intentionally concentrate deer and supplement their diet.


----------



## Munsterlndr

rmw said:


> The whole food plot vs deer health argument is a pretty lame one any way . As long as farmers are planting food that deer will eat you will have higher deer densities than what the "natural" habit will support , and a more concentrated population .


So what the hell, we might as well knowingly contribute to the problem and throw caution to the winds. 

The factory is spewing pollution into the air so I might as well pour this used motor oil down the drain, it's only a tiny bit more pollution. What the heck, right?

Rationalization is a great method to use when trying to convince yourself that it's really Ok to do something that you already know is wrong. 

Btw, one of the primary reasons that many food plotters plant is to provide increased food for the times of year when agricultural crops have already been harvested. The term winter carry over indicates that you are trying to support a larger herd then could be supported with the food that is normally available during the summer and fall months by minimizing the normal seasonal mortality that occurs when other food sources are diminished. This ignores the fact that whitetails have significant seasonal metabolic changes that allow them to exist on a lot less food during winter months in natural situations. 

Trying to justify irresponsible behavior by claiming that the impact is insignificant is a mind set normally found in teenagers, one would hope that responsible adults could take a little bit more comprehensive view of things.


----------



## rmw

ESOX said:


> The differences
> These areas were not planted with the intent of concentrating and artificially sustaining the deer population. Deer that are unnaturally congregated spread disease from one to another at a much higher rate.
> No one knows if the old orchard was put there by man or wildlife. No one has done anything with it in at least the past 60 years, since the current owners family took over, many of the trees are immature. It is self sustaining.
> The oaks on the ridge? As with almost all hardwoods in Michigan, the room for them to grow was afforded by mans logging activity. Whats the point? Do you actually think that people went out and planted all the hardwoods we see now? Or are you saying that they were planted all over the state with the intent of artificially promoting deer populations?
> I don't think that the logging of the pines was intended to greatly expand the whitetails population, but it certainly had that effect.
> 
> And finally the strawberries, yes they were planted by man. With the intent of feeding man. They have the effect of concentrating and artificially inflating deer numbers. This is a catch 22, for man must eat as well, but in NO WAY does it justify other activity which serves no other purpose than to intentionally concentrate deer and supplement their diet.


My point is mans activity has changed what Mi and the world is , your oaks and apple trees may have been planted for wood and food but they do sustain deer ,more deer than if Mi was all old growth timber . Natural is now what man wants it to be . Years ago man killed all of the wolves in Mi because it was what some of the residents wanted , now they have put them back . Wherever man goes the enviorment is changed to what he wants it to be eventually


----------



## ESOX

rmw said:


> My point is mans activity has changed what Mi and the world is , your oaks and apple trees may have been planted for wood and food but they do sustain deer ,more deer than if Mi was all old growth timber . Natural is now what man wants it to be . Years ago man killed all of the wolves in Mi because it was what some of the residents wanted , now they have put them back . Wherever man goes the enviorment is changed to what he wants it to be eventually


I don't get what you are driving at. Yes, man has changed the environment. It can and will never be what it once was.
So your contention is that because the environment has already been irreparably altered, it is OK to intentionally employ practices for the sole purpose of maintaining the deer herd above naturally sustainable levels, and concentrating the deer unnaturally? Geez I hope not.


----------



## rmw

Munsterlndr said:


> So what the hell, we might as well knowingly contribute to the problem and throw caution to the winds.
> 
> The factory is spewing pollution into the air so I might as well pour this used motor oil down the drain, it's only a tiny bit more pollution. What the heck, right?
> 
> Rationalization is a great method to use when trying to convince yourself that it's really Ok to do something that you already know is wrong.
> 
> Btw, one of the primary reasons that many food plotters plant is to provide increased food for the times of year when agricultural crops have already been harvested. The term winter carry over indicates that you are trying to support a larger herd then could be supported with the food that is normally available during the summer and fall months by minimizing the normal seasonal mortality that occurs when other food sources are diminished. This ignores the fact that whitetails have significant seasonal metabolic changes that allow them to exist on a lot less food during winter months in natural situations.
> 
> Trying to justify irresponsible behavior by claiming that the impact is insignificant is a mind set normally found in teenagers, one would hope that responsible adults could take a little bit more comprehensive view of things.


You are assuming I think food plots are wrong in some way . I do not , the DNR must not either since they have used tax payer dollars to plant them on state land "not that I think they are always right either" 

Ranting and raving about something you have no control over is also something some teenagers and adults might do although I know some pretty responsible teenagers and I don't think any of them would pour motor oil down the drain 

If someone wants to plant food plots for viewing purposes , hunting advantages or to grow bigger deer I say more power to them


----------



## rmw

ESOX said:


> I don't get what you are driving at. Yes, man has changed the environment. It can and will never be what it once was.
> So your contention is that because the environment has already been irreparably altered, it is OK to intentionally employ practices for the sole purpose of maintaining the deer herd above naturally sustainable levels, and concentrating the deer unnaturally? Geez I hope not.



My point is what is the naturally sustainable level , if there is better habitat that level goes up 

old growth forest VS something that was logged off or burned 5 yrs ago 

There will be great hunting in the UP where the fire was for many years in the future , that happend naturally but man puts out the fire "and I don't blame them" but if man puts out the fire that will create the future deer food what is wrong with cutting down a few acres and planting a clover field. I see it as helping a renewable resource


----------



## Michihunter

rmw said:


> You are assuming I think food plots are wrong in some way . I do not , the DNR must not either since they have used tax payer dollars to plant them on state land "not that I think they are always right either"
> 
> Ranting and raving about something you have no control over is also something some teenagers and adults might do although I know some pretty responsible teenagers and I don't think any of them would pour motor oil down the drain
> 
> If someone wants to plant food plots for viewing purposes , hunting advantages or to grow bigger deer I say more power to them


So you don't think providing a higher risk of disease transmission is irresponsible? Or that nothing can be done about it? BTW- The DNR has issued warnings regarding foodplots in the TB zone. Perhaps they do know of the risks involved, no?


----------



## William H Bonney

Ed Spin04 said:


> Monitors, I asked to shut this thread down. I'm serious about the subject of finding answers to combat TB and that's is the intent of this thread. ....


No your not Ed.... you're trying to peddle more magic beans. If you were truly interested about the answers you would read the replies/scientific studies, basically contradicting EVERYTHING you've posted. 

Just outta curiousity Ed,,, what does 2 + 2 equal, in FantasyLand??


----------



## rmw

Michihunter said:


> So you don't think providing a higher risk of disease transmission is irresponsible? Or that nothing can be done about it? BTW- The DNR has issued warnings regarding foodplots in the TB zone. Perhaps they do know of the risks involved, no?


There was one letter about planting root crops and not all of the DNR is in agreement about it , they haven't banned anything so apparently it does not worry them like bait does , they have not had any food plot warnings in WI and they have CWD there 

If you are worried about food plots you better make man made scrapes and licking branches illegal with them all urinating in the same place and licking that same branch


----------



## swampbuck

rmw said:


> You are assuming I think food plots are wrong in some way . I do not , the DNR must not either since they have used tax payer dollars to plant them on state land "not that I think they are always right either"
> 
> Ranting and raving about something you have no control over is also something some teenagers and adults might do although I know some pretty responsible teenagers and I don't think any of them would pour motor oil down the drain
> 
> If someone wants to plant food plots for viewing purposes , hunting advantages or to grow bigger deer I say more power to them


The DNR plants rye, Not root crops (sugar beets) And the amount has been drastically reduced over the past few years, and I believe eliminated in dmu 452.


----------



## Michihunter

rmw said:


> There was one letter about planting root crops and not all of the DNR is in agreement about it , they haven't banned anything so apparently it does not worry them like bait does , they have not had any food plot warnings in WI and they have CWD there
> 
> If you are worried about food plots you better make man made scrapes and licking branches illegal with them all urinating in the same place and licking that same branch


Find any group that is complete agreement on any one thing and you've found a truly rare occurence. The DNR is no different. The fact that a memorandum did come down on root crops means that someone obviously thought enough of the risk to do such a thing. Sorry but it's pretty tough for anyone to take you seriously when you use both the 'for' _AND_ 'against' argument with the same type of group(ie: WI DNR and MI DNR). And I actually happen to agree with your statement regarding artificial means with the sole purpose of concentrating deer. IF you are going to travel that road with one type- baiting- then it should be done with all types. Any other regulating or lack thereof is merely hypocritical.


----------



## rmw

Michihunter said:


> Find any group that is complete agreement on any one thing and you've found a truly rare occurence. The DNR is no different. The fact that a memorandum did come down on root crops means that someone obviously thought enough of the risk to do such a thing. Sorry but it's pretty tough for anyone to take you seriously when you use both the 'for' _AND_ 'against' argument with the same type of group(ie: WI DNR and MI DNR). And I actually happen to agree with your statement regarding artificial means with the sole purpose of concentrating deer. IF you are going to travel that road with one type- baiting- then it should be done with all types. Any other regulating or lack thereof is merely hypocritical.


I don't care if you put out a pile of bait and i'm not for the bait ban and just because there is a study that says it is true I don't always buy it . Heck I don't believe in man made global warming but somehow I know I will end up paying for it


----------



## rmw

swampbuck said:


> The DNR plants rye, Not root crops (sugar beets) And the amount has been drastically reduced over the past few years, and I believe eliminated in dmu 452.


Do you believe DMU452 is the only place that has a animal that has TB , With CWD found in Wi I do really wonder why the DNR left the UP alone on the bait ban heck they have had wild deer there with CWD and we only had one in a pen


----------



## CBMLIFEMEMBER

I'm waiting for a private land owner to sue the State. I believe if I own the ground I should be able to dump any thing that is biodegradable where I want on it. State Land should be bait and any type of plot free.


----------



## huntingforhabitat

CBMLIFEMEMBER said:


> I'm waiting for a private land owner to sue the State. I believe if I own the ground I should be able to dump any thing that is biodegradable where I want on it. State Land should be bait and any type of plot free.


What are you saying land owners should have rights that are different then those who just show up on state land to use the resources.


----------



## swampbuck

rmw said:


> Do you believe DMU452 is the only place that has a animal that has TB , With CWD found in Wi I do really wonder why the DNR left the UP alone on the bait ban heck they have had wild deer there with CWD and we only had one in a pen


So far the only tb deer discovered in michigan outside 452 and the surveilance zone was in Shiawassee county. I have no doubt that there are more out there. I believe the baiting ban is as much about TB as CWD, I support that and believe that the DNR suggestion that certain types of food plots should not be planted in 452 be made law and include the surveilance zone at the minimum.


----------



## Guest

SB you say our MDNR does not plant root crops, just Rye. You post that you plant state land food plots for the DNR. Evidently you either know little about our DNR DRIP operation or are ignoring facts. I was asked several times through the years by the MDNR to bid on state land food plots. I was given the entire plan for over 300 acres of food plots in just one district, with the option of severl more districts if wanted. There was some rye in the plan but not much. The forage consisted of sunflowers, buckwheat, perennial clover blends and brassica blends with the emphasis on turnips being the primary forage within the brassica blend. Last I heard, turnips are a root crop and the one mentioned in the memo by the field biologist in DMU 452, which BTW wasn't acted upon. There were no studies anywhere by anyone that showed that food plots spread the TB bacteria. Do you still plant food plots on our state lands Swamp Buck? If so you have lost any credability here. "Do as I say not as I do", is that your mantra SB?


----------



## Liver and Onions

e. fairbanks said:


> Us MIGHTY HUNTERS want more deer (w/bigger bodies and awesome antler development). How TO ? Better nutrition ! We practice Animal Husbandry. We are Deer Farming. .....


I would agree that deer farms with high fences practice animal husbandry and are deer farmers. But to say that about those of us who put in foodplots, come on.
Do we like to grow plants, to see deer, more bucks, bigger racks, more turkeys, etc, ....well sure that's why we do it. Accept of course for those who claim to only do for the "health of the deer herd".:lol::lol: Amazing how many claim that and yet live and hunt in southern Mich. where food isn't much of a concern. 

L & O


----------



## swampbuck

Ed Spin04 said:


> SB you say our MDNR does not plant root crops, just Rye. You post that you plant state land food plots for the DNR. Evidently you either know little about our DNR DRIP operation or are ignoring facts. I was asked several times through the years by the MDNR to bid on state land food plots. I was given the entire plan for over 300 acres of food plots in just one district, with the option of severl more districts if wanted. There was some rye in the plan but not much. The forage consisted of sunflowers, buckwheat, perennial clover blends and brassica blends with the emphasis on turnips being the primary forage within the brassica blend. Last I heard, turnips are a root crop and the one mentioned in the memo by the field biologist in DMU 452, which BTW wasn't acted upon. There were no studies anywhere by anyone that showed that food plots spread the TB bacteria. Do you still plant food plots on our state lands Swamp Buck? If so you have lost any credability here. "Do as I say not as I do", is that your mantra SB?


 We did not plant last year as the areas we normally plant were not done, In 2007 We only planted one large plot as the Low bidder was not able to complete the contract (He is a member here.) And the local biologist requested that we do so. Previous to that it was a yearly project for which ever areas we won the bid on. We have planted plots in Roscommon County primarily which has well over 300 acres and Crawford, and Missaukee county in the past. We have been involved in this for 20 years. They were 100% rye, no other types of crops were planted. We will plant them again if the money is right, however it will have to rise to pre 2007 levels at minimum to be worthwhile.

You may have recieved bid packages for those crops downstate but I have never seen a bid package for anything other than rye in northern michigan and I have seen a lot of them for several different county's over the years.

And just for the record I have done so because it is my job. I have never and would never hunt over them as I do not and have never hunted over bait whether placed or planted. Have you ever recieved a bid document to plant turnips in the TB zone???

The company was also involved in the A.O. trade also when it was accepted practice. Since then we have fought a never ending battle to keep them out of the tree/shrub fields. I have probably cut, sprayed, tilled. and pulled with a loader considerably more A.O. than you have planted. A.O has spread from those fields for at least 2 or 3 miles in considerable numbers. We recieve request to sell or let people transplant them every year. WE DONT ALLOW IT. Claims that A.O. is not invasive and will not spread are misguided.


----------



## Guest

SB, that large field that wasn't finished. Could it be in the Clare Gladwin area? If it is in this area, could you tell us the seed you planted?


----------



## Joe Archer

Ed - 
I think your idea in general of killing bacteria on the ground with a substance (in this case sugar) has some merit. However, I think you need to look at the limitations. 
The reason that TB is virtually impossible to remove from a wildlife population once established is because it has so many stores. In this case, stores equal other animals and NOT ground stores. If you could magically snap your fingers and remove all ground contamination of TB, it would do little in the long term goal of disease eradication. The disease is basically spread through respiratory aerosols and saliva of infected animals. The post in this thread that accounts that TB "was not isolated from feces or rectal, nasal, oral swab specimens from any deer, M. bovis was not isolated from feed, soil, water or fecal samples..." should be compelling evidence that ground contamination is a minor concern when dealing with this disease. 
In any case, even if you can kill bacteria by creating an osmotic environment to rupture bacteria cell membranes, or cause fluid to be purged from the cell membrane causing bacteria death; it would very likely have minimal impact on the spread or control of the disease. 
The scientifically accepted method to limit the spread of TB is to reduce herd density and reduce nose to nose contact of animals. 
<----<<<


----------



## swampbuck

Ed Spin04 said:


> SB, that large field that wasn't finished. Could it be in the Clare Gladwin area? If it is in this area, could you tell us the seed you planted?


 Roscommon County, Backus flooding area. We planted rye. I have never seen a bid package for anything else in the area we have serviced.


----------



## Guest

Backus flooding eh, I hunted just south of there from 1963 till 1993. The last 20 years on private land, Mid Forest Lodge. Joe Archer, you hit exactly on my ultimate point. TB in Michigan is endemic and will not be eradicated by eliminating baiting, (that is controlled baiting, feeding with tonnage piles is differant) or silly unproven statements that food plots spread TB. In 1999 I attended a seminar in Osceola County. I made a presentation along with Dr. Steve Schmidt, MDNR chief Vet and Dr. Osborne of MSU, (both very learned and fine gentlemen). Their subject was TB and how they intended to eliminate it. They said that TB has never survived in a free ranging deer herd anywhere and we just needed to eliminate feeding, baiting and lower the deer density to achieve success and that this will take a few years. They pointed out that close contact caused by high deer density, feeding and baiting with the enevitable exchange of fluids and TB bacteria in the air from infected animals, (coughing wheezing etc) between deer is a major cause in the spread of TB. They did emphasize that TB is difficlut for deer to contact normally, (they need many repeated contacts with infected deer). I pointed out to Dr. Osborne that TB pandemics were common in New York and caused by drinking milk from Bovine TB infected cows, and wasn't controlled until pasteurization came about. I asked how he would address the problem of nursing fawns with TB infected mothers, (a primary cause of TB being endemic short of total elimination of deer). Munstr, you are not the only or first one to swing at one of my dark ones and miss. Perhaps it bears repeating, '"There are no studies that show that controlled baiting or food plots spread TB". Is it possible that just maybe planting certain forage and maintaining them in a certain way helps to contoll the spread of TB? We don't know, but it wouldn't hurt us and maybe benifit us if we studied the subject. Joe Archer, thanks for yor astute observation. Now, there must be more Joe Archers out there, let's hear from you.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Ed, you are the personification of the statement, "Ignorance is Bliss". You have been repeating your statement that "there are no studies that show that controlled baiting or food plots spread TB" for so long that you have come to believe it, despite the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that points to the contrary and the total lack of any evidence to support your claim. You are quite frankly delusional.

Science does not prove anything, the fact that you are calling for proof shows your lack of understanding of how the scientific method works. Science entails the process of accumulating evidence that supports a theory. The validation of a certain theory is the result of connecting a series of dots until the picture becomes clear. Putting together isolated pieces of a puzzle, if you will, until the whole picture is visible.

In terms of the theory that baiting and food plots contribute to the spread of disease, particularly TB, there have been a number of scientific studies which have provided many of the pieces of the puzzle.

_TB remains viable for extended periods on food stuffs commonly used in both baiting and food plots - (Palmer & Whipple)_

_TB remains viable in climactic conditions commonly found in Michigan -(Fine et. al.)_

_Supplemental feeding increases the potential for close contact of deer (Van Deelan)_

_TB remains viable in pastures for extended periods- (Williams and Hoy)_

_Spatial distribution studies of food plot use shows deer concentrate in certain areas.- (Fullbright)_

_Spatial analysis of Deer Density and supplemental feeding shows positive correlation with increased prevalence of TB - (Hickling)_

_Higher deer densities contribute to the spread of bacterial diseases - (Leopold)_

_Increased herd density creates high risk condition for the spread of CWD-(Joly et. al.)_

Those are enough pieces of the puzzle to be able to make out much of the picture and the picture is becoming increasingly clear, that baiting and food plots both concentrate deer, sustain increased density and create conditions which contribute to the spread of communicable diseases.

Your bizarre theory that the sugar content of sugar beets will somehow stop the spread of disease is simply a fantasy that you have concocted, apparently in hope of defending your practice of selling RR sugar beet seed. You have offered not one iota of evidence to support your claim, instead complaining when anybody posts information that is contrary to your theory. That is not how science works. Sugar beets are not going to be the solution to the TB problem in Michigan, no matter how desperately you want them to be. 

TB will be eradicated when a viable oral vaccine is developed. The USFWS has been working on developing such a vaccine for a few years and has made promising progress. If you are truly interested in dealing with this problem, that's where your efforts should be concentrated. Continuing to push your sugar beets, in the face of pretty substantial evidence that they will exacerbate the TB situation when planted in areas where TB is known to exist, simply continues to erode your credibility.


----------



## Tom Morang

Science is what YOU make it.


----------



## omega58

Google is AWESOME!:lol:


----------



## SteveBrule

Hey Everyone, Dr. Steve Brule with a Brule's Rules special report. Heres a...listen to this music video to listen to while you read about disagreements.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p8_FOQ7-P30&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p8_FOQ7-P30&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>[/youtube]


----------



## e. fairbanks

We have insecticides- we still have all the insect pests
We have weed killers- we still have more weeds
We have birds and animals classified as pests- none have been eradicated
We have vaccines for human and animal disease- we still have the diseases
We have plant diseases ???? over which we have little control
The Bovine TB Eradication Program originated in 1917
We live in a society of 'make believe"
MDA AND DNR ARE PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO CLASSIFYING OUR DEER AS PESTS ! HERE IN THE 12 COUNTIES OF THE TBIZ LIVESTOCK OWNERS ARE URGED TO SHOOT THEM, NO CLOSED SEASON OR BAG LIMIT OR HUNTING LICENSE REQUIRED.


----------



## Guest

Good points E Fairbanks. When our decision makers finally figure out that the major social contact between all deer is the licking branch over a scrape and is one major source of desease contact, we just may hear a proposal to cut all trees and brush throughout Michigan. We have TB, it may be endemic and be with us always as you point out other areas in your post E. Fairbanks. Think about that licking branch and how it is used year round by all deer from mature bucks, to does and fawns, and used daily. We are talking saliva exchanged, a major source of TB bacteria according to our MDNR, between family groups and even roamers visiting for some action. Repeat, this could be daily social contact through a single source and a single location. throughout the year. Compare that to controlled bait for a single season or food plots, where the forage that is licked is also eaten and gone. When one looks at the big picture and the real one, it makes you wonder what some are thinking, when they point at man made non serious soucres as major desease spreading and not paying attention to your title E. Fairbanks, "Lets look at reality".


----------



## Michihunter

e. fairbanks said:


> We have insecticides- we still have all the insect pests
> We have weed killers- we still have more weeds
> We have birds and animals classified as pests- none have been eradicated
> We have vaccines for human and animal disease- we still have the diseases
> We have plant diseases ???? over which we have little control
> The Bovine TB Eradication Program originated in 1917
> We live in a society of 'make believe"
> MDA AND DNR ARE PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO CLASSIFYING OUR DEER AS PESTS ! HERE IN THE 12 COUNTIES OF THE TBIZ LIVESTOCK OWNERS ARE URGED TO SHOOT THEM, NO CLOSED SEASON OR BAG LIMIT OR HUNTING LICENSE REQUIRED.


Let's do take a look at reality.

We have insecticides- we still have all the insect pests (but we'd have MORE without it)

We have weed killers- we still have more weeds (but we'd have MORE without it)

We have vaccines for human and animal disease- we still have the diseases (but we'd have MORE without it)

Without trying to reduce the things you feel we haven't affected, you'd end up with a worse situation. I don't understand why anyone would want to potentially exacerbate a problem. Especially if they call themselves a sportsmen or a responsible steward of our resources. Adding food sources to an area will increase herd capacity in that area. Period. Increased capacity means increased risk for disease transmission. Period.Trying to justify those practices for whatever reason is hypocritical at best and downright dangerous at worst.


----------



## S.NIEMI

Michihunter said:


> Trying to justify those practices for whatever reason is hypocritical at best and downright dangerous at worst.


I agree.....hard to say what I really feel though.:16suspect


----------



## Munsterlndr

"We have vaccines for human and animal diseases"

And in countries where those vaccines are used in a systematic and comprehensive manner, the prevalence of most of those diseases has been reduced to the point of being almost non-existent. The fact that the utilization of vaccines will not result in 100% eradication of a specific malady is not a credible argument for ignoring the potential of a vaccine, at least in my opinion. As the father of four Children, I am glad as hell that I don't have to lose much sleep over the thought of my kids contracting Polio or some other debilitating disease that has been largely eradicated in this Country due to the widespread use of effective vaccinations. 

With an effective oral cervid vaccine, sugar beets or bait piles or licking branches all become irrelevant, because the potential for that saliva carrying a bacteria that other deer are susceptible to has been eliminated. The whole issue becomes moot.


----------



## S.NIEMI

Through all this stupidity......try to see the class warfare being waged. This is America....don't let this happen!!!


----------

