Several months ago, we reported on a novel approach to estimating and studying wild turkey populations. As stated then, one of the most important elements of wild turkey management is estimating turkey populations. We must be able to gauge whether these are stable, increasing, or decreasing, and do so in an efficient manner. That isn’t easy, though. However, new research methods are bridging gaps between possibilities and newfound abilities.

“The goal is to see if this technique will allow us to know exactly how many turkeys are using particular properties,” said Adam B. Butler, CWB, director of conservation development with the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. “One of the shortcomings in the science and management of turkeys is that they’re so difficult to count. It’s difficult to compare certain things against other things, such as certain management practices against other management practices, certain habitats against other habitats, etc.”

The research is being conducted on the Chickasaw WMA, Choctaw WMA, Little Biloxi WMA, and Wolf River WMA. It’s also taking place on private lands in Hancock, Jefferson, Kemper, and Marshall Counties.

The theme of this research method consists of collecting feathers and fecal droppings of wild turkeys. These are then DNA tested to identify unique birds within the flock. This allows them to maintain accurate population counts, movement across the landscape, and much more. This non-invasive genetic sampling method is showing great promise. It’s showing to be even more accurate, beneficial, and cost-effective than banding, among other methods.

Once you can accurately and reliably count turkeys, you can achieve so much more in terms of wild turkey research. It opens up additional doors that previously remained shut.

As noted in the previous blog post, the goals of this research include:

• Estimating male and female turkey density with different spring season frameworks.
• Estimating male and female breeding season survival in relation to varying spring season frameworks and habitat management practices.
• Evaluating the relationship between Poults-Per-Hen (PPH) index and estimated population densities the following year.
• Leveraging experimental design to estimate impacts of various harvest frameworks and habitat management on density, recruitment, survival, and population growth trends.
• Using genetic assays to quantify disease, parasite, and aflatoxin prevalence in wild turkeys across different study sites and relate these back to changes in density.

So, what’s been learned since we last reported on this research? A lot. Dr. Dana Morin, Dr. Mark McConnell, Dr. Daniel Greene, and Adam Butler, are excited about the discoveries from this effort. It hasn’t come without setbacks, though.

“We have been focusing on DNA extraction and genotyping,” they said in a report. “We attempted a standard fecal DNA extraction protocol and sent about 100 fecal and feather samples to GT Seek, LLC, for genetic sequencing using an optimized panel developed previously for Dr. Michael Chamberlain and Brett Collier for a brood parasitism study. Unfortunately, only the few extracts from feathers produced genotypes and none of the fecal extracts amplified.”

That wasn’t the only hiccup. Another hurdle presented itself earlier this year.

“Following this discovery, we began to experiment with different collection, storage, and extraction protocols,” the report said. “However, we were delayed by the increase of Avian Influenza detections in Mississippi raising biosafety concerns over the extraction protocol for turkey fecal samples. We worked with the MSU Institutional Biosafety Committee to develop BSL-2 protocols for safe handling of samples for extraction and were provided clean lab space with a biosafety cabinet to complete all extractions.

“We were able to start work again in early June 2025,” the report continued. “In that time, lab technician Joe Bender completed several extraction experiments and performed quantitative PCR to measure resulting DNA concentrations. We found using a different extraction kit worked equally well with samples previously collected and stored in DET buffer and for samples that were collected whole and stored in coin envelopes with silica beads for desiccation.”

In layman’s terms, this dedicated crew worked through the challenges, and they found a way to make it work.

“Now that an appropriate extraction protocol has been identified, Bender is training two additional technicians and the three will be working to complete all new extractions and re-extract samples that previously did not work,” the report concluded. “The one limitation is only one person can work in the biosafety cabinet at a time, but we hope to complete extractions early this fall and send these out for sequencing so we can complete the project.”

Check back soon for a more detailed recap of this effort, and final conclusions from this research in Mississippi.