Preliminary Screening of White-Tailed Deer Repellents

Harris, Mark T.; Palmer, William; George, John L.

doi:10.2307/3808526

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Differences among compounds primarily relate to the active ingredient or its concentration. Putrescent whole egg solids (Big Game Repellent) effectively inhibited deer in our tests, as has been demonstrated in numerous other studies (Harris 1983;Palmer et al 1983;Conover 1984;Andelt et al 1991Andelt et al , 1992Sayre and Richmond 1992;Nolte et al 1995;Nolte 1998). The lower efficacy for BGR liquid relative to the BGR powder has been previously reported (Melchoirs and Leslie 1985), and probably reflects a reduced egg concentration, 4.93% versus 36%, respectively.…”

Section: Contact Repellentssupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Andelt et al ( 1991) reported the efficacy of thiram to increase with progressive test days, while deer increased their intake of rations treated with other repellents. Several studies report products containing thiram to deter herbivores (Harris et al 1983;Conover 1984;Andelt et al 1991;Nolte 1998). Although in our comparative study the single thiram-based product was marginally effective .…”

Section: Conditioned Avoidancecontrasting

confidence: 48%

“…Ammonium soaps of higher fatty acids (Hinder) did not deter deer. Hinder also has demonstrated limited or variable effectiveness in other studies (Harris et al 1983;Palmer et al 1983;Conover 1984;Hygnstrom and Craven 1988;Andelt et al 1991Andelt et al , 1992 .. Garlic is ineffective to repel deer. Prior studies have indicated that garlic deters foraging herbivores only as long as other palatable options are readily available (Nolte et al 1992).…”

Section: Contact Repellentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparing the efficacy of delivery systems and active ingredients of deer repellents

Dale¹,

Kimberly²

2000

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deer (Odocoileus spp.) occur across the United States and provide many desirable recreational and aesthetic opportunities. Unfortunately, deer foraging, particularly where population densities are high, can negatively impact agricultural resources or damage ornamental plants . Repellents are often regarded as a desirable approach to limit deer browsing. Although many products are marketed for use as repellents, the efficacy of these products in actually reducing deer browsing is varied. This paper reviews the results from efficacy tests we have conducted at the NWRC Olympia Field Station over the past several years as well as repellent work conducted by others. General efficacies of delivery systems and active ingredients incorporated in a variety of products are compared. Generally, products which have repeatedly demonstrated good efficacy in our trials are those products that produce sulfurous odors . These products have significantly reduced deer browsing for 8 to 12 weeks.

show abstract

Section: Contact Repellentssupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Conditioned Avoidancecontrasting

confidence: 48%

Section: Contact Repellentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing the efficacy of delivery systems and active ingredients of deer repellents

Dale¹,

Kimberly²

2000

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One technique used to mitigate deer damage is the application of chemical repellents that, when applied to plants, makes them smell and/or taste bad to deer. Harris et al () tested the efficacy of 14 repellents in reducing captive white‐tailed deer damage on corn and demonstrated that the application of Hinder® (Amvac, Newport Beach, CA), an ammonia‐based product that both smells and tastes bad to deer, was effective in reducing the amount of corn consumed. Tanner and Dimmick () documented that the application of Hinder soon after the emergence of soybeans in small fields (2 ha) increased yield.…”

Section: Classification Of the Vegetation And Reproductive Growth Stamentioning

confidence: 99%

The impacts of white‐tailed deer browsing and distance from the forest edge on soybean yield

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many soybean (Glycine max) producers consider white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to be costly crop pests, and chemical repellants are an option for reducing deer damage. To cost-effectively utilize repellants, it is crucial to know the spatial and temporal aspects of deer-browsing patterns. During 2003During -2006 in Delaware, USA, we investigated where and when browsing was most intense within crop fields and subsequently had the greatest effect on yield of soybeans at an estimated deer density of 21 deer/km 2 . We systematically placed plots (n ¼ 1,340) at 10-m intervals from the forest edge. We designed protection treatments to mimic the effect of chemical repellents. We systematically assigned types of protection treatments to plots and protected plots using fencing. Protection did not affect the yield of double-crop soybeans in any year. In 2 years of the study (2003 and 2006), protection did not affect full-season soybean yield. In the other 2 years (2004 and 2005), plots protected from deer browse yielded less than plots that were not protected. Yield tended to be the lowest in the first 20 m from the forest edge, but there was no interaction effect between deer browsing and distance from the forest edge for any year or crop type. We found that deer browsing increased yield, possibly because browsing increases branching of individual plants, and thus the number of bean pods. We also found that the distance from the forest edge affected yield, but independently of deer browsing. Deer damage to soybeans, at a deer density of 21 deer/km 2 , may be more of a perceptual issue and the use of a chemical repellant would not be justified. Ó

show abstract

“…Deer-Away BGR has been shown to deter elk from feeding on various forages (Andelt et al 1992, Witmer et al 1997, Baker et al 1999). In addition, both Deer-Away BGR and blood meal have been shown to effectively reduce deer browsing on various forages (Harris et al 1983, Milunas et al 1994, Witmer et al 1997, Nolte 1998, Wagner and Nolte 2001. Nevertheless, topical repellents have their shortcomings, including limited effective duration due to weathering.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of chemical repellents and Vexar bud caps to reduce winter deer and elk browsing on conifer seedlings in northern Idaho

Moser¹

2002

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wintering deer and elk can cause extensive browsing damage to forest plantations. This study was undertaken to identify the cost-effectiveness of two repellents (Plantskydd and Deer-Away BGR Liquid) and Vexar bud caps in reducing browse damage to conifer seedlings. Three plantations located on traditional winter range were selected for the study. The 3 sites were rated by pellet group counts as either elk range, deer range, or both elk and deer range. Treatments were applied to each site in the fall of 2000 in a randomized block design. Trees were then surveyed for damage 5-6 months later once snowmelt had occurred and the animals had migrated to higher elevations. All 3 treatments were equally effective in reducing terminal browse damage by up to 42% when compared to controls on the elk range and deer range sites. However, the site with equal deer and elk use received low browse pressure and no treatment differences for terminal damage were detected. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution, as the winter of 2000-01 was relatively mild in northern Idaho, resulting in a snowpack of 50% of normal. Thus, browse pressure may also have been less than normal. Nevertheless, the 3 treatments tested appear to be effective in reducing both deer and elk winter browsing of conifer seedlings at low to moderate levels of browsing pressure.

show abstract

Preliminary Screening of White-Tailed Deer Repellents

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Comparing the efficacy of delivery systems and active ingredients of deer repellents

Comparing the efficacy of delivery systems and active ingredients of deer repellents

The impacts of white‐tailed deer browsing and distance from the forest edge on soybean yield

An evaluation of chemical repellents and Vexar bud caps to reduce winter deer and elk browsing on conifer seedlings in northern Idaho

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About