Is anyone familiar with the research done by Dr. Marcus Lashley with the MSU deer lab? The simplified version is when you cut down a tree, the tree dumps a disproportionate amount of nutrients into the regrowth. It works regardless of the species. Another reason to remove undesirable trees and another item to consider while managing your land.

Yep, my dad has been following the MSU deer lab stuff for a while. He’s got mineral stumps everywhere and the deer absolutely hammer them.

Ive found a good many natural mineral stumps in a couple areas around beaver dams as well. One particular spot has a ridge full of Cherry trees. Every tree the beavers cut down during the growing season sprout from the stump left behind and the deer hit them really hard.

Well I be damn.....who;d of thunk it.......


A plant recycling it nutrients back into soil high in organic matter producing highly desirable forage for the deer...... If only we could do it in a bigger area than a stump......

If you remove undesirable trees and then allow them to grow back...you will be removing them again. Can you call them undesirable if you plan on using them ?? hmmmmm...lol

I'd say don't call then undesirable and don't call them weeds......Call it all "Nature" and then go mold into the shape you desire that uses the basic design she has given you.....Use her general blue print and priciples and don't start trying to recreate the wheel

are specific species of trees better than others? I remember years ago we cut down a sweetgum that was about 5-6" in diameter in a foodplot. I remember the following year when it sprouted back that the deer hammered it. That property was lacking in forage anyway so I wrote it off as they were starving (and prob were). this reminded me of that stump lol

Good info Coosa1. I definitely enjoy listening to the deer lab guys. They are informative without being over the top scientific.

Never thought about the beaver thing SR, but that makes sense and will be something I'll be looking for when scouting.

CNC, I'm assuming you're referencing the dead and decomposing material from spraying or mowing plots. This is a different angle as the tree is still alive and trying to replace the "lost" portion. The leaves of that particular tree are the beneficiary. The easiest way to do it in an area bigger than a stump is to add more stumps.

tt, after the initial removal, I'm hopeful the deer do their job and keep it from fully regrowing until it actually dies. Worst case scenario, if it grows too high for their benefit, I'll cut it again.

CNC, if a tree doesn't have timber value, provide mass/browse, or otherwise perform a task for the wildlife or me, I'd call it undesirable. I may be wrong, but I assume things like oxygen production, erosion control, etc. can be performed by a desirable tree just as well. I'm not advocating clear cutting your property to provide mineral stumps, but if you're going to get rid of a tree for other purposes, be aware of the potential benefits of mineral stumps. If someone is going to cut firewood, perhaps a treestand placed nearby could pay off or if someone is debating between hinge cutting, hack and squirt, cut and treat or conventional removal, this info could factor in. Also, not recreating the wheel as trees have been being removed by man or nature forever, just pointing out a possibly overlooked benefit.

Buzzard, from what I've read/heard so far it's not species dependent. I believe a gum was mentioned as a good candidate.

Yeah I'm with you on doing habitat improvements and such.....I'm constantly messing with something too. The idea I was talking about is more generalized. Look at nature with an open mind and see the basic blueprint.....sorts like how the blueprint for every house is very similar but each house may have the unique variables be different....I may use sheet rock and you use OSB.....but both have the same structural design that includes walls....Now you would think that sounds a little silly to use walls as example as if someone could build a house so screwed up that they forgot walls..... However...take a look at our traditional food plot prep and then look over at nature......then back to you field.....then back....and see what all is missing.....Well, theres no roof on it...I see that.....theres no insulation nature's OM......theres no electrical wiring...like m. fungi......the plumbing is all screwed up......and so on...Theres not even anybody living in this house like natures microbes!!!.....Reckon why?


I'll go back and check out the stump thing better....I must have misunderstood.....Are you talking about them feeding on the stump sprouts that shoot back? The name for that type of method is coppice. Deer like maples, tupelo, oak, ....???? Dang, I forget now but there's a couple more preferred

I agree, you have to look at the big picture and there is no one size fits all.

Yes, I'm talking about the stump sprouts and after a quick glance at Google it appears I'm talking about coppice. Observational data showed deer were eating them, but Dr. Lashley did a study and realized the phosphorus and other nutrients were way higher on the sprouts vs a regular tree of the same species. I'm not fully caught up and don't want to misrepresent anything. I believe at the time it wasn't species dependent, but I don't think they were finished studying the data either.

So you cut them before the green up in the spring I assume.

Jac, I want to say the time frame I heard them reference was late summer. He mentioned doing them right before bow season with possibly lesser results. I'm going to cut some soon and will report how it goes.