Technology & Development Program July 2001 Comparison of Commercial Deer Repellents Andy Trent, Project Leader; Dale Nolte and Kimberly Wagner, USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center Foraging deer can
shelters) are sociallyacceptable nonlethal
Bad taste can also induce avoidance.
does not equate with effectiveness. Some repellents may contain activeingredients at concentrations belowavoidance thresholds. Others maycontain ingredients that don’t repelthe target species. The Olympia Field
How Repellents Work Delivering Repellents
Station of the USDA Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service, Wildlife
conditioned avoidance, pain, or taste.
applied to the plant (contact delivery).
help predict the efficacy of repellents.
desirable. Systemic delivery is ideal.
odors as indicators of predator activity.
The repellents are contained withinthe plant. They cannot be washed off,
nausea or gastrointestinal distress.
of a food if it is associated with illness. For additional information, contact: Andy Trent, Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, MTDC; Bldg. 1, Fort Missoula; Missoula, MT 59804–7294. Phone: 406–329–3912; Fax: 406–329–3719; Lotus Notes: Andy Trent/WO/USDAFS; E-mail: [email protected] Test of Commercial Repellents
foods are readily available elsewhere.
rectly to a plant. If the goal is to reduce
repellents are most effective whenthey are applied directly to the plants.
Table 1—Product names, sources, active ingredients, and modes of action for repellents evaluated as a means of reducing black-tailed deerdamage to western red cedar seedlings during deer repellent tests from October 1998 to July 1999 at Olympia, WA. Product and Manufacturer Active Ingredient Detour (Sudbury Consumer Products Co., Phoenix, AZ) Deerbuster’s Coyote Urine Sachet (Trident Enterprises, Frederick, MD) Wolfin (Pro Cell Bioteknik, Hornefors, Sweden) Deerbuster’s Deer and Insect Repellent (Trident Enterprises, Frederick, MD) Deer Away Big Game Repellent Powder (IntAgra, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) Deer Away Big Game Repellent Spray (IntAgra, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) Bye Deer (Security Products Co., Phoenix, AZ) Hinder (Pace International LP, Kirkland, WA)
0.66% ammonium soaps of higher fatty acids
Plantskydd (Tree World, Lackawanna, NY)
87% edible animal protein (in concentrate)
Hot Sauce (Miller Chemical and Fertilizer Corp., Hanover, PA) Get AwayDeer and Rabbit Repellent (DRR), IntAgra, Inc., Minneapolis, MN)
0.625% capsaicin and related compounds, 0.21% isothiocyanate
Ropel (Burlington Scientific Corp., Farmington, NY) Tree Guard (Nortech Forest Technologies, Inc., St. Paul, MN) Orange TKO (TKO Industries, Calgary, Alberta, Canada) Deer Stopper (Landscape Plus, Chester, NJ)
3.8% thiram, 0.05% capsaicin, 1.17% egg solids
Not Tonight Deer (Not Tonight Deer, Mendocino, CA)
88% dehydrated whole egg solids, 12% Montok pepper (in concentrate)
Plant Pro-Tec (Plant Pro-tec, LLC, Palo Cedro, CA)
10% oil of garlic, 3% capsaicin and related compounds
Dr. T’s Deer Blocker (Dr. T’s Nature Products, Inc., Pelham, GA)
3.12% putrescent whole eggs, 0.0006% capsaicin, 0.0006% garlic
Deerbuster’s Deer Repellent Sachets (Trident Enterprises, Frederick, MD) N.I.M.B.Y. (DMX Industries, St. Louis, MO)
0.027% capsaicin and capsaicinoid product, 4.3% castor oil
1Conditioned avoidance
Figure 3 shows the results of thewinter test. None of the repellentseliminated deer browsing throughoutthe 18-week test. However, therewere distinct differences among therepellents. In general, topical repel-lants performed better than arearepellents. Fear-inducing repellentsperformed better than the other typesof repellents. Eight of the nine repel-lants considered most effective forthe first 11 weeks emitted sulfurousodors. Repellents containing decaying
Figure 1—Penned black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) in one of the five pasturesused during deer repellent tests from October 1998 to July 1999 at Olympia, WA.
3-foot intervals. At planting, seedlingswere about 20 inches high with manylateral branches (figure 2). All seed-lings were planted immediately beforetreatment.
Seedlings were examined for browsedamage at 24 hours, 48 hours, and1 week after planting, and then at 1-week intervals for 18 weeks. Damagewas determined by counting the num-ber of bites taken from each seedling. No more than 25 bites were recordedbecause seedlings were generallydefoliated by then. Seedlings pulledfrom the ground were considereddestroyed and recorded as having25 bites.
Efficacy of repellents may vary de-pending on several factors, includingavailable resources and seasonalchanges in plant palatability. Redcedar seedlings are generally morepalatable after winter dormancy hasbroken. Therefore, repellents thatworked during the winter were testedagain during the spring when seed-
Figure 2—Olympia Field Station personnel planting western red cedar for the deer repellent
tests. The 20-inch seedlings were planted at 3-foot intervals in three rows. RESULTS OF WINTER 1999 REPELLENT TEST Number of bites Weeks from treatment application
Figure 3—Average number of bites (maximum bites = 25) taken from repellent-treated western red cedar seedlings by black-tailed deer in anoutdoor pen study from October 1998 to March 1999 at Olympia, WA.
Deer Sachets, Deerbuster’s Sachet,and Plantskydd. Conclusions
nal irritants as active ingredients.
ducted during spring 1999 (figure 4).
odors are generally the most effective. RESULTS OF SPRING 1999 REPELLENT TEST Number of bites Weeks from treatment application
Figure 4—Average number of bites taken from repellent-treated western red cedar seedlingsby black-tailed deer in an outdoor pen study conducted from May to July 1999 at Olympia, WA. Source Material
materials. Damage inflicted on seed-lings during training or subsequent
effective for a transitory or migratoryspecies (such as elk moving from
the 19th Vertebrate Pest Conference.
delivery systems in deer repellents.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29: 322–330.
to predict the efficacy of repellents inthe field by extrapolating from empir-
development. In: Proceedings of theVertebrate Pest Conference. 18: 325–329. About the Authors Andy Trent is a project engineer at Dale L. Nolte is the project leader at Kimberly K. Wagner is a research
and watershed, soil, and air programs.
ment Program in the Department ofFisheries and Wildlife. Library Card Additional single copies of this document For further technical information, contact Electronic copies of MTDC’s documents may be ordered from: Andy Trent at MTDC. are available on the Forest Service’s FSWeb Intranet at:
Fax: 406–329–3719E-mail: [email protected]
The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture
an endorsement by the Department of any product or service to
for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
(USDA), has developed this information for the guidance of its
the exclusion of others that may be suitable. The U.S. Department
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)
employees, its contractors, and its cooperating Federal and State
of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination,
agencies, and is not responsible for the interpretation or use of
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,
write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten
this information by anyone except its own employees. The use of
religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or
Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C.
trade, firm, or corporation names in this document is for the
marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all
20250–9410, or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is
information and convenience of the reader, and does not constitute
programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Comments on “BIOIDENTICAL HORMONES” - March, 2009 Below is an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal on Mar 16th, 2009. Two of my patients have been kind enough to give me a copy of the article, to warn me of what’s out there. My comments are dispersed throughout the article. This type of article is exactly why there is so much “confusion, ignorance and misinformation”
Technology &
Figure 3 shows the results of thewinter test. None of the repellentseliminated deer browsing throughoutthe 18-week test. However, therewere distinct differences among therepellents. In general, topical repel-lants performed better than arearepellents. Fear-inducing repellentsperformed better than the other typesof repellents. Eight of the nine repel-lants considered most effective forthe first 11 weeks emitted sulfurousodors. Repellents containing decaying
Figure 1—Penned black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) in one of the five pasturesused during deer repellent tests from October 1998 to July 1999 at Olympia, WA.