WHEN MONEY
MATTERS
This article was originally printed
in the August / September 2000 issue of Tracking The Industry. .
.
"So what's a doe worth," came the
inevitable question, followed by the expected, "How much would it cost me to
set up?" Giving tours at a rate of nearly one a day this summer, we've come to
know which direction inquiries tend to lead. A seemingly renewed interest in
deer farming has bombarded us with inquiries and caused us to again ponder the
market, market possibilities, and investment equations in Saskatchewan deer
farming.
Factors in
Breeding Stock Value
We certainly haven't got all the answers and it
seems that factors compound constantly in this thriving industry. We have,
however, done lots of asking and observing and have come up with a set of
factors that may be useful to some in determining the value of breeding stock.
Four years ago a deer was a deer and each of these few available animals was
basically worth the same top-end dollar. Such is no longer the case!
Most
any deer is still worth a very attractive sum, and those top-end dollars are
still there to be had, but many criteria now factor into the commanding of
these available high prices. An expanding producer, potential producer, or
interested investor may, in no particular order, consider the following
factors.
Is the parentage of the animal
known?
Thorough, accurate records are ever more important in marketing
any product in our selective society and deer farming is no exception. Some
producers choose to closely monitor fawning in order to tag fawns to does at
birth. Some go even further and DNA test parentage. While tracking information
such as birth weights, doe productivity, and weaning rates for individual
animals, this also allows one to determine a family tree and build (or select
from) genetically stacked lineage. Some producers choose, for various reasons,
to "leave well enough alone," and tag fawns in the fall. In some cases only the
buck is known for sure. Even with DNA technology, informational gaps begin to
emerge. Birth weights, of debated importance, would be lacking in such a case.
Regardless of practice, few producers would argue against the value of
increased data, both in marketing and in strategic breeding.
If parentage is known, are there
recognizable names in the pedigree?
Even if antler scores are known,
marketing is made easier with names attached. Most of us are convinced that
we've got the next wonder buck on our farm and these lines may well be
consistently producing superior animals, but it seldom hurts to have
established parentage (already promoted) within the line-up. Familiarity quite
naturally draws consumer attention and without such familiar parentage, lots of
promotion is needed to compensate and create the same awareness (It can be
done!).
The size of antlers is all important
and, ultimately, the genetic passdown potential of these awesome antlered
animals.
170+ typical or 195+ non-typical seem to be the ‘magic
marks!' Are there siblings that demonstrate the consistency that these big
(bigger is definitely best) antler traits are being passed on? Are there older
siblings that have matured to maximum growth? Some bucks pass on large antlers
consistently, but never outstanding antlers. Some occasionally pass on huge
headgear, but lack the genetic consistency. Which would you prefer?
How many generations, on dam and sire
sides, are known and what class of antlers are obviously bred into a certain
animal?
As more proven generations are bred into an animal's family
tree, less is left to chance. Probability and predictability should increase
along with the generations of selective breeding, thus increasing the value of
an animal, its offspring, and its offspring's offspring.
One mustn't simply consider the males of
the species.
What about the breeding/fawning/production history on the
dam's side? Number of fawns, birth and weaning weights, and any available
antler scores on male offspring are all important bits of information. Large
fawns are, overall, more viable. That is they tend to be hardier and less
susceptible to illness–vital characteristics especially when born in
adverse weather conditions. Fawns that wean heavy will usually do better
through winter and basically get the headstart that often leads to
better/earlier breeders and antler growers. Of course, multiple births from big
healthy does, are desirable from an economic outlook. Multiple births (if big
and healthy) mean multiplied returns on an investment. From a biological and
economic stand then it would only make sense to select from female lines that
have a recorded history of these traits.
Body size is and will continue to be of
debatable significance, but perhaps larger bodies leave less to
chance.
A lactating doe is under tremendous physical stress. If she has
more muscle mass maybe she is able to carry through the summer season in better
condition with less chance of succumbing to the hardships of raising her fawns.
Since antlers are simply a skeletal extension, perhaps a big-bodied male is
more likely to grow big antlers. I know of small does that raise great fawns
and small bucks with superior antlers, but we're out to increase the odds of
growing those big guys. A fellow producer recently stated, regarding a certain
bunch of scruffy, runty doe fawns, "That's the nice thing about the females.
They don't grow antlers and it's the antlers that count." I don't claim to know
a whole lot, but don't these females grow the males that grow the antlers?
Hmmmm! There are lots of ‘maybe's' with this one, but it is something to
seriously investigate.
"AI ability" of a doe is of growing
significance, too.
As science soars ahead, artificial insemination (AI)
becomes "the great equalizer" in that it allows access by all (for a price of
course) to the very best available genetics. Not all does however, seem
biologically receptive to the AI process. Some does, on the other hand, are
highly receptive and therefore fairly "safe bets" when investing big (sometimes
necessary) dollars in AI. This is a freshly arising factor, but if given a
choice, why not go for the doe that will allow more options?
Health history has to be examined and
even more so, source herd health.
For an individual animal, the owner
and his/her record system will have to be trusted. An animal that has
repeatedly suffered from illnesses is a prime candidate to continue such. The
health of a herd, however, is more easily observable and of incredible
importance. Some testing is government regulated, but there are other health
issues to consider. Poor nutrition or inbalance within a diet can have long
term effects. Deficiency of minerals and/or vitamins can have a vast range of
repercussions. Tiny, non-viable fawns or even premature births can result along
with birth defects. Sick fawns can be caused by poor nutrition in a doe months
before fawning. A vet recently explained how a doe needs to be in optimum
condition 60-90 days prior to fawning in order to produce proper colostrum.
Lack of such leaves fawns susceptible to bacteria that is always present in
soils, but seldom presenting a problem to fawns that receive adequate
colostrum. So a doe that is in good shape at fawning may be a matter of "too
little too late." How do you judge a deer's health? Again, I'm no veteran at
this, but I do know that even animals on inadequate diets usually look "real
nice" through fall and early winter. It's a natural metabolic process. Problems
begin to present themselves though, in late winter and spring as winter and
gestation take their toll. Hair can be a very visible indicator especially if
there is something out of the ordinary showing. Pale, dead-looking, curly hair
and early hair loss may indicate deficiencies. I don't mean to make anyone
paranoid, but it is good to be informed. Murray Feist's article in the
June/July 2000 issue of "Tracking. . ." lists, in chart form, signs and
symptoms for a variety of conditions. If concerned, consult a
professional.
The
temperament of an animal should be considered with relative priority to those
factors deemed most important.
A high stress doe isn't much fun to be
around, but risk, in general, increases with stress. Low stress animals can be
observed more closely and frequently. If health problems arise, they will be
more readily spotted. A deer is infamous for going and going and going
‘till it's suddenly gone. Early intervention is often vital. Everyday
management involves inspections, pen rotation, sorting of animals and the
potential for stress. Tours are important for marketing of stock and of our
industry but these too can really stir deer up. Seeing stock up close and
personal is certainly a selling feature, but it can't happen at the expense of
the animal. There are some very quiet, non-bottlefed herds out there.
Bottlefeds can be just a degree tamer to the point of being pets. Low stress
does raise low-stress fawns (in general) so they are certainly a good starting
point. Quiet critters must be handled differently (simply led) but can be
confined in small pens or corrals with human presence, usually with little
concern. Small-scale pens and corrals are often the only affordable way to
begin the deer farming experience, and relatively tame animals allow more
people to become producers. Bottlefeeding tends to be a $750.00 to $1500.00
touch (depending on feeding program, labour intensity and final product), but I
obviously believe the dollars will pay dividends.
"So what's a doe worth?" came the
expected repeated question. It all seems to gain complexity with explanation. I
can't create a graph of factors and value, but I always advise interested
parties to start phoning and touring. Get informed! Get a base price on fawns
and does as well as a top-end price. List the factors that each has in its
favour and create your own scale of value. Don't assume that"the best deal" is
your best deal. The real value of an animal usually determines the real value
and "saleability" of its offspring. The old saying rings true, "You get out
what you put in." Have fun ‘shopping'! Finally, here's something that is
actually fun shopping for!
Starting Up on a Budget
While
shopping for that perfect doe that will gain you sure fame and fortune, stop
and consider what you'll do with your stock. New producers will continue the
growth and viability of our industry. We must be able to show the financial
accessibility of deer farming as well as its financial returns. "How much would
it cost me to set up?" As my visitor now expects, I give a multi-factored,
indefinite answer of, "It depends!" It depends on land base, number of animals,
temperament of animals, and one's own budget.
One of the draws of deer farming is that
almost any land base can be the right land base.
Some fortunate folks
own vast tracts of real estate. Some, fortunate in their own way, own acreages.
According to Sask. Ag. & Food's "White-Tailed Deer Financial and Production
Information" 1999 guide (p.7), deer can be pastured at a rate of 2.5 doe-fawn
units per acre, "dependent on the production capabilities of the land." One
quickly realizes then how large acres needn't be a necessity.
Number of animals must be an early
consideration.
Top quality and cared for stock can produce premium
returns so high numbers are certainly not needed. If few animals are your
initial entrance into deer farming, few acres are probably required. Smaller
pens are often the recommended management plan anyway. One would still want to
include several (3-4) such pens in "the budget" to assure manageability of the
sexes and ages.
Temperament of stock is of tremendous
importance, especially if starting up small-scale.
Pyschological stress
and physical injury can be greatly reduced with mildness of temperament. Such
animals are much more at ease in smaller pens and require less elaborate
handling/corral systems (though still well-planned). Small pens will guarantee
human contact so be prepared by purchasing low-stress stock. Lack of stress
will also allow animals, male and female, to reach their full
potential.
A financial budget is crucial to the
success of any business, regardless of size.
While I'm highly confident
in the longevity of our market and firmly believe that spending more can make
you more, I can really relate to the vast majority for whom a bulging budget
simply isn't a possibility. One must resort to reality, but don't be scared off
by start-up costs. Sask. Ag. & Food's "White-Tailed Deer Financial &
production Information" 1999 guide outlines in excellent detail a model
financial statement, an income statement, and cash flow projections that
financial institutions could peruse. This model, however, based on $74,500.00
cash equity and $74,500.00 in borrowed capital, includes an initial purchase of
10 does and a buck and the set-up of a substantial farm. Call me lower class if
you must, but those dollar figures did not find their way into my beginning
budget. We need the big investors but we need the small scale farmers, too.
Sask. Ag. & Food has outlined a terrific plan, but that's what it is –
"a plan." It doesn't have to be your plan. Look at the fencing and corral costs
they've detailed. With your own invested labour and some comparative shopping,
knock 25% or so off building costs.
Can you set up a deer farm without
setting your spouse packing?
Sure! Fence fewer acres, begin with fewer
deer, and make sure they're quiet. I advise most people to start small. Learn
and grow as you go. It's a lot easier to enjoy "the game" when you can see
above "dugout level," but don't let ‘less loonies' keep you from starting
what you know will bring in the ‘big bucks.'
Randy Barks
-
Back to Library -
Please report any technical
problems with this site to the webmaster