White-tailed Deer Effect on the Sustainability of

Agriculture and Farming

Quentin Lloyd
NR1234
Erin Poor
Technical Briefing- Final Paper

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are a species of deer native to most parts of
the United States, with the most population centered around states such as Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Georgia, and New York (UGA, 2015). The white-tailed deers eating habits include
browsing on plants such as corn, soybeans, wheat, acorns, and many other grains. Without a
proper ecosystem to support a high population density of deer, other resources such as
commercially planted crops and landscapes take a negative impact. It is noticed that the
population of white-tailed deer may influence the surrounding environment close to its habitat.
Some may not realize the impact that the white-tailed deer have on farming and agriculture, but
it is important to take the overall picture and data to analyze the trend. The rapid increase in
population of Whitetail Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) has created a noticeable negative impact
on the sustainability of crops and farming in certain parts of the United States. This impact
includes the overgrazing of food crops, produce, and landscaping as well as overall damage to
the land. Farmers as well as scientists must examine the costs and benefits of proposed solutions
to deer population management.
The main issue that farmers and commercial growers face is the over-browsing of crops
due to a large increase in deer population. In an article called Environmental Trends Report, The
New Jersey Division of Science, Research, and Environmental Health analyzes the population of
white-tailed deer over the span of about 30 years (NJDEP, 2016). In the year 1985, the
population of deer hovered around 112,000 in the State of New Jersey. Looking forward to the
year 1995, deer population peaks at around 205,000. This increase in population is roughly 83%
in the span of 10 years (NJDEP,2016). While that may not seem like a gigantic increase in deer,
the main issue is deer per square mile. With an increase in deer population per square mile, crops

are more susceptible to deer grazing. The NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife states that Deer
populations have reached problematic numbers in numerous areas of the state (NJDEP, 2016).
This is an understatement for some areas of New Jersey because some areas are the perfect
environment for deer. With a lot of crop fields next to wooded areas, the deer do not have a long
walk from their resting area to food.
As highlighted in the population assessment created by the NJDEP, another article
published by Rutgers University displays the effect deer have on New Jerseys farmers in the
year 1997. During this year, the correlation can be made between high population, and
economical loss of crops (Rutgers NJAES, 2016). Farmers in the survey stated that white-tailed
deer were responsible for about 70% of crop losses (Rutgers NJAES, 2016). It was also
calculated that 39% of farmers from the survey had such an economical loss that they needed to
take additional actions to mitigate the problem (Rutgers NJAES, 2016). Between $5 and $10
million in crop losses were attributed to white-tailed deer for farmers in 1997 (Rutgers
NJAES,2016). These surveys are a key indicator that the population of white-tailed deer is
significantly higher than it used to be, and must be examined for further use in order to control
the population.
Another large impact that white-tailed deer inflict on the sustainability of the
environment includes the destruction of hardwood forests. This is not only disadvantageous for
foresters, but also for another species whose habitat may be destroyed. In an article written by
the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station, authors examine how white-tailed deer
have an impact on the vegetation dynamics of a northern hardwood forest. The study displays the
correlation of deer density and the height that different trees grew in a certain area. 9 different
species of trees and deer density are explained as a strong correlation (Horsley, et. al., 2003).

Rubus, a species of herbaceous ground layer, when the deer population is 4 per square kilometer
the percent ground cover equaled 1.6 per square kilometer (Horsley, et al., 2003). As the deer
density increased to 25 per square kilometer, the percent ground cover drastically decreases and
is reduced to 0.3 (Horsley, et al., 2003). This major loss in herbaceous ground cover is directly
correlated to the population density of white-tailed deer. It is also tested that various species of
trees such as: black cherry, red maple, birch, American beech, and striped maple experience a
drastic loss of height when the deer density increases in each area. An example of the results
shown is that the Striped maple tree was estimated to be 3.65 feet tall when the deer density was
3 per square kilometer, but as the deer population increased to 15 and 25 per square kilometer,
the striped maple trees height reduced to 3.00 and 0.94 feet (Horsley, et al., 2003).The vast
reduction of tree and herb reduction is due to the overgrazing of white-tailed deer due to the
population boost that occurred.
Another scientific example of deer making a negative economic impact in the
sustainability of agriculture is the production of soybean crops in Little Cree, Delaware. In the
article it is explained that browsing rates of soybean leaves are calculated by looking at the
number of leaves browsed within a specific area (Colligan, et al., 2001). Also examined by this
study was the hypothesis that the browse-rate decrease was caused by soybean plants becoming
less palatable as the plants matured from vegetative to reproductive stages (Colligan, et al.,
2001). This is important because if farmers can pinpoint which time exactly their crops are more
in danger of browsing, efforts can be put into full effect to keep the deer out and protect the
soybeans by certain prevention methods. It is also known that deer prefer to eat soybean crops in
the early stages of growth, when the plants are green and more bitter. As the plant develops and
matures, white-tailed deer do not favor soybeans as their main diet choice.

Although the main effect of deer browsing on crops due to an increase in population is
the economical side for farmers, there is also an environmental and social issue pertaining to this
issue. One main environmental issue that farmers can face is not being able to properly rotate
their crops such as utilizing a 3-field crop rotation. Changing the location of a place to plant
certain crops makes sure that the species has a lower chance of rotting by potential bacteria and
diseases that can associate with crops. After a certain crop may be planted in one place for too
long it will begin to adapt and can be targeted by certain predators whether it be bacterial or
danger from deer browsing. When deer over browse a certain field, sometimes farmers are
forced to resort to a location that is less than ideal. All factors to the immense problem of the
white-tailed deers tendency to over browse crops must be taken into consideration to find the
best solution.
Many things must be taken into consideration to finding a solution to this problem such
as cost, effectiveness, environmental impact, as well as the time it may take to come up with the
solution. It is also advised that some solutions may be the best for one type of crop, but when it
comes to another there may be a better option. Farmers will often seek guidance from
agricultural companies for their preferred solutions. The first proposed solution to remedy the
problem is the use of physical barriers such as vertical and slanted horizontal fences. It may
seem obvious that a fence may be the one and only remedy, but after analysis that is not always
the case. The Indiana Fish & Wildlife analyzes fences as a type of management in their article
named Managing Deer Damage. It is explained that the two types of fences that can have a high
rate of success with controlling deer population are the woven wire fence and electric fences
(Indiana, 2016). It is tough for farmers to decide to use fencing because of the sheer large initial
cost and the fact that it must be maintained frequently due to storms and trees falling. The first

type of fencing illustrated is an eight foot deer proof fence. It is mentioned that this type of
permanent fence is very effective, but it has a very large construction and labor cost that may
limit the use for very small areas that always need to be covered (Indiana, 2016). It is composed
of wooden posts staked into the ground with woven wire fence along the height (Indiana, 2016).
The most elaborate type of fence that can be used is the slanted outrigger fence. Represented in
the picture labeled Figure 1, the slanted outrigger fence is a successful structure due to the
conventional wire fence being put at an angle that confuses deer as they might approach it
(Indiana, 2016). Once again interpreted in the 8 foot fence, cost of this is very high which may
not be accessible to farmers for the area that needs to be covered. Other types of fence include
electrical fence, utilizing peanut butter and shocking, and poly tape fences (Indiana, 2016). Once
again, the cost of electric fence is too high to be used commercially, and some environmentalists
may argue that this is not a human way of handling the issue. Overall, fencings slightly
advantageous effectiveness does not surpass the cost and effort that is needed to install and
maintain.
A second solution to controlling the population of white-tailed deer to promote
sustainability in agriculture is the introduction of predators such as coyote or wolves to the
environment. It is widely known that animals higher on the food chain will target ones that seem
weaker and easier to catch. It is mentioned that Throughout the range of white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), many studies have documented that coyotes (Canis latrans) are the
greatest source of natural mortality for neonate deer (Robinson, et. al., 2014). The study
expressed in the article examines the survival rate of deer with the involvement of coyote. One
key result states In addition to increasing survival, reductions in antlerless harvest could have an
effect on the numerical response of coyotes to deer fawns, because lower adult female mortality

results in greater numbers of fawns produced in the spring (Robinson, et. al., 2014). This result
proves that reducing the number of female deer harvested from hunting results in a greater
amount of offspring produced that may survive from coyotes. The main point also illustrates that
coyotes do not have as big of an impact on deer population as originally thought. With proper
deer management, the coyote predation may not have a huge effect. Using predators such as
coyote is a not very effective option for farmers to consider. In Wisconsin, it is estimated that
there are 80 wolves and it costs roughly $100,000 each year to watch over and control the wolf
population. This is a very high price tag for the estimated 1600 deer that 80 wolves can kill in
one year (Wisconsin). It will cost a lot to import predators, and to introduce them to the wild. It
is not very environmentally friendly, since coyotes are being placed in an ecosystem that they
were not originally located in. This will interrupt many things such as habitat for other animals,
predation which already existed, and food sources for another species.
The third proposed and preferred solution examined is hunting to reduce the population
of white-tailed deer. Some theories tested might include whether targeting females reduces
population the most or if increasing hunting permits and seasons makes a noticeable difference
for farmers. A lot of great information is found about hunting to reduce white-tailed deer
population in an article written by the Indiana Division of Fish & Wildlife. As outlined in the
article, it says Regulated hunting is universally used by wildlife managers to remove excess
deer and reduce property damage. Responsible, recreational hunting continues to be the most
effective means of managing deer populations (Indiana, 2016). Sometimes the Fish and Wildlife
division will allow an increase in harvests of antlerless deer (female) by issuing special permits
to allow hunters to do so. This is not only the way that the state can control herd population, but
is also a great idea for farmers to cut back on the deer in their area. If more female deer are taken

out of the population, there is a less chance of sexual reproduction to occur. In addition to
antlerless hunts, the Indiana Division of Fish & Wildlife offers out of season control permits.
These permits are attained by having a minimum loss of $500 in deer damage (Indiana, 2016).
Hunting is an obvious solution to the overpopulation of white-tailed deer because it is
directly reducing the number of deer in each population. Other means such as fencing are only
reducing the chances that the deer will get to the crops, while means of hunting are reducing the
chance that there will even be a deer in the area to browse on the field. The economic gains that
hunting produces includes the attribution to sustaining a healthy ecosystem. Hunting licenses
cost money to obtain, which directly benefits not only the government slightly, but most of the
money goes back into the environment to support white-tailed deer hunting. Some
environmentalists may believe that hunting deer is drastically decreasing sustainability and
hurting the deer population, but the main goal of many hunters is to promote sustainability by
only harvesting mature deer and building the ecosystem. In addition, most times if hunters will
harvest a deer and do not need the meat, the deer is given to a local charity that helps feed the
poor and homeless. Not only is deer hunting economically friendly to farmers, but also to others
who indirectly gain from it.
Three main aspects that can be used to analyze each solution is economics including cost,
effectiveness of the solution, and impact on the environment and ecosystem. Fencing is an
obvious choice because it is a physical barrier which will keep a deer from entering, but its
major downside is cost. There is a large bill to install major fencing around certain large field
crops, and if it is ever damaged there will be yet another bill for farmers to have to pay to
maintain it. Looking at the environmental side, fences can be a problem for an ecosystem
because it divides a location which was previously open for passage. Certain animals other than

deer may now be limited to their area to travel.The second solution, the introduction of coyotes
faces another tough hurdle environmentally. It is not favorable to introduce species that are not
originally native, and it can have major consequences on the natural food chain. Its effectiveness
may be slightly better than others, but with proper herd maintenance it is proven to not have a
large effect on the overall population of white-tailed deer. Cost of introduction of species will be
high as well, due to the transportation and medical work that must be done to make sure diseases
arent spread. Deer hunting is the best option to effectively control deer population because of
the combination of low cost, pure effectiveness, and the fact that it is non-disruptive to the
environment.
The rapid increase in population of Whitetail Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) has created a
noticeable negative impact on the sustainability of crops and farming in certain parts of the
United States such as New Jersey and Indiana. This impact includes the overgrazing of food
crops, produce, and landscaping as well as overall damage to the land. It is up to farmers and
researcher to find the best solution. The best solution found is hunting due to the effectiveness,
low cost, and how little it affects the ecosystem. The issue of deer over-browsing food crops in
America is a very important issue that must be carefully analyzed to ensure sustainability. The
American Farm Bureau Federation calculated that Farmers and ranchers receive only 16 cents
out of every dollar spend on food at home and away from home (Federation, 2015). This shows
just how hard farmers in America work and how little they earn. It is disadvantageous that
white-tailed deer are taking even more profit away from the food and crops that farmers are
producing. Suggestions for future research to control the populations of white-tailed deer
includes the analyzation of male to female deer ratios per population. I am mainly interested in
what ratio of doe to buck produces the most and least number of deer in a given population. It is

critical that the solutions to this problem are carefully recognized and put into effect to maintain
the sustainability of agriculture.

Figure 1: The Slanted Outrigger Fence

Literature Cited
UGA College of Veterinary Medicine. 2015. White-tailed Deer Populations 1988. Accessed
online Nov 3, 2016: http://vet.uga.edu/scwds/range-maps
NJDEP, Divisionn of Science, Research, and Environmental Health. 2016. Wildlife Populations:
White-tailed Deer. Accessed online Nov 3, 2016: http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/trends/pdfs/wildlifewhitetail.pdf
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 2016. How Are White-Tailed Deer Affecting
Agriculture in New Jersey?. Accessed online Setember 21, 2016:
http://www.njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/deerdamage/

Horsley, S.B., Stout, S.L, and DeCalesta, D.S. 2003. White-Tailed Deer Impact on the Vegetation
Dynamics of a Northern Hardwood Forest. 13:98-118
Stewart, C.M., McShea, W.J., and Piccolo, B.P. 2007. The Impact on White-Tailed Deer on
Agricultural Landscapes in 3 National Historical Parks in Maryland. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 71:1525-1530

Colligan, G.M., Bowman, J.L., Rogerson, J.E., and Vasilas, B.L. 2011. Factors affecting whitetailed deer-browsing rates on early growth stages of soybean crops. Human-Wildlife Interactions.
5:321-332
Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Managing deer damage, Indianas white-tailed deer.
Accessed online October 7, 2016: http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/2718.htm
Robinson, K.F., Diefenback, D.R., Fuller, A.K., Hurst, J.E. and Rosenberry, C.S. 2014. Can
managers compensate for coyote predation of white-tailed deer? Jornal of Wildlife Management.
78:571-579
Clemson University Extension Wildlife Program. 1996. Reducing Deer Damage, at Home and on
the Farm. Accessed online October 7, 2016:
http://www.clemson.edu/psapublishing/Pages/AFW/afw6.pdf
Vercauteren, K.C., Lavelle, M.J., and Hygnstrom, S.E. 2006. A Simulation Model for
Determining Cost-Effectiveness of Fences for Reducing Deer Damage. Wildlife Society Bulletin.
34:16-22

Rogerson, J.E., Bowman, J.L., Tymkiw, E.L., Colligan, G.M., and Vasilas, B.L. 2014. The
impacts of white-tailed deer browsing and distance from the forest edge on soybean yield.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. 38:473, 7.
Wisconsin DNR & Whitetails Unlimited. World of the Whitetail. Checking out the Options.
Accessed Onlihttp://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/ce/eek/teacher/pdf/CheckingOutTheOptions.pdfne
December 6, 2016: