Food plots for feeding deer

[Baker]

It seems the conventional wisdom I see posted on threads here as well as other sources is that food plots provide only a ' fraction' of a deers diet. I want to challenge that convention.

Certainly if plots are only an acre or two of small grains and maybe some clover primarily for hunting then agreed that will not have much impact on a deers diet. However many folks plant both winter and summer plots, certainly here in the south. I propose that food plots can provide a significant portion of a deers diet and profoundly improve the nutritional plane. This being true even with the best managed timber and habitat in conjunction with the plots.

I believe this supposition holds true when plots are large enough to handle grazing and both summer and fall cultivars are planted. When these circumstances are in place my experience is that the plots can provide a significant amount of a deers diet over the course of a year. Granted with spring green up and fall acorns, plots are used less but still not abandoned. Much of the rest of the year deer will spend a significant amount of time in the plots. Put an exclusion cage in a quality clover or summer bean or pea field and extrapolate the tonnage removed. Or run a 100 foot transit thru a summer plot and measure browse pressure. Then run a transit thru the highest quality managed timber and measure the browse pressure. Then consider how many acres of woodland it takes to equal modest acreage of productive crops. Walk out in a clover field first thing in the morning and observe deer beds. Deer frequently may loiter all night in these fields.

I am not diminishing the value of well managed timber. Absolutely it provides quality nutrition and cover. I am proposing that a well designed year round planting program greatly enhances the nutritional plane irrespective of the quality of local soils and provides a significant portion of a deers diet regardless of the surrounding habitat. What percentage of the diet I cant measure. But I do believe it is significant enough to materially improve the health of the herd.

Taking it a step farther. Summer plots can be designed such that deer will spend much of their time both daytime as well as night in the plots . We are now planting plots that include such cultivars as sunn hemp, sorghum sudan grass, milo etc. These plants in combination with cow peas, climbing soy beans, or other climbing peas create a literal jungle such that deer are comfortable hanging out in the fields unobserved even in the daytime. The same thing happens in large corn fields.

Many folks hunting territory is around commercial ag. Ask farmers if they get significant pressure on their beans or alfalfa or anything deer eat. I realize ag is different from our food plots but the results are the same. Deer are going to gravitate to the easy meal and I believe get much more of their dietary needs met there than elsewhere .

The significance of this to us as habitat and wildlife managers is to realize we can materially improve the deers diet thru our plantings. And as scale increases the benefits increase. And I do appreciate that in many cases the scale of property in the south is larger than that in the north. But the principles don't change.

 

[j-bird]

I do this to some extent with overseeding my brassica and cereal grains into my summer annual plots. I works to some extent...but you still have to determine which crop is more important to you and try to cater more to it. I say this because if I want my beans or corn to do well I focus on their needs (row spacing, planting density and the like) and the cereal grains and brassica are simply an "extra". If I want the cereal grains and the brassica to do well, I then go really thin on the corn or beans to ensure I have the sun light I need in late summer hitting the ground to facilitate quick germination of the small grains and brassica. So you seldom get something for nothing....you simply have to figure out which one is the priority and add the others as "extras". Farmers don't mix crops for a reason...efficiency!

Your "jungle" plots will do the same....I have simply found that I can only mix a grass and a broadleaf and control weeds is mostly with RR corn and soybeans.....I also have these readily available as well so the deer are VERY familiar with them as well. I am sure I can also help my situation out some with a earlier maturing corn and bean varieties....but I don't use enough to be picky and often simply use what I can get my hands on. It all depends on how far "into the weeds" you want to get on this stuff.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

I am very pleased with my diverse summer mix. I havent inspected the plot since hunting season started so i'm unsure how well my over seeding of brassica and rye fared. I have my doubts I got much if any germination.

I think next year I'm going to skip the sunflowers all together just to see how many volunteer plants come up. My worry is even If I reduce the pounds of sunflower seed planted I'm still going to get some volunteer plants that come in and make them to thick again. I am also going to plant an earlier maturing soybean as opposed to the more forage variety that was in the mix this year. I'm hoping that with the early maturing beans I will get better fall growth of my brassica and cereal.

 

[IkemanTx]

I posted a picture on Baker’s farm thread of the late summer condition of my father’s food plot. I had tried to get him to plant a very similar mixture as what baker plants, but he essentially excluded the sunn hemp and sunflowers. Only planting those on the perimeters.

Nonetheless, the cowpeas, determinate soybeans, indeterminate soybeans, and buckwheat did fantastic by themselves. The plot got chest high in most areas and was heavily utilized.

I tried to get my father to throw the fall plot and mow the entire field, but he was determined he wanted to try leaving some soybeans standing. So, he mowed every other strip over the broadcast seed. The mowed strips look AWESOME, but the stuff left standing are barren. Just the odd standing bean or two. I have already told him that if he wants standing beans next year, he would have to plant ag beans and pray the 1 care makes it... (but that it probably won’t)

I will be doing a straight up clone of Baker’s rotation next year for my own food plot and hope to repeat the success of this year’s summer plot and the success of the mowed strips of fall plot.

This afternoon’s view above, and the peak of summer growth below.

My plots will be in an area with a VERY low deer population, and straight coastal bermuda / fescue grazing. I expect my few acres to be the primary food source for at least a doe group or two. Aside from early spring green up and 3-4 weeks in the fall, we are brown almost the rest of the year.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SwampCat]

I agree - food plots - at least in the south provide more than incidental feeding opportunity for deer. I have deer spend hours in them - often bedding. I don't know how much food a deer can consume in several hours - but I would expect a fair percentage of the daily requirements. I have planted the tecomate lab-lab plus to create the summer type "jungle" - and the ebony peas overcome the sunflowers and white milo - basically rendering those plants useless for the peas to climb. However, coffee bean commonly grows in my area and provides a sturdy support system. The peas grow to the tops of 12 ft tall coffee beans

 

[j-bird]

I just want to add that we need to understand that the stress period is VERY different for deer between the deep south and the far north. Those truly interested in raising the nutritional plane and having healthy deer should focus on that time of year FIRST. We also have to consider the length of the growing season and what will survive the different climates and soil conditions as well. If it was all the same, it would be easy....and very boring.

 

[scott44]

I plant the LC mix/rotation and a soghum/milo mix for summer planting. I run trail cams all year so I have a preety good idea of how much they are being used and I believe these plots are a good portion of their diet. Here's on of my 3 brassica plots over the last 3 weeks.

 

[yoderjac]

It seems the conventional wisdom I see posted on threads here as well as other sources is that food plots provide only a ' fraction' of a deers diet. I want to challenge that convention.

Certainly if plots are only an acre or two of small grains and maybe some clover primarily for hunting then agreed that will not have much impact on a deers diet. However many folks plant both winter and summer plots, certainly here in the south. I propose that food plots can provide a significant portion of a deers diet and profoundly improve the nutritional plane. This being true even with the best managed timber and habitat in conjunction with the plots.

I believe this supposition holds true when plots are large enough to handle grazing and both summer and fall cultivars are planted. When these circumstances are in place my experience is that the plots can provide a significant amount of a deers diet over the course of a year. Granted with spring green up and fall acorns, plots are used less but still not abandoned. Much of the rest of the year deer will spend a significant amount of time in the plots. Put an exclusion cage in a quality clover or summer bean or pea field and extrapolate the tonnage removed. Or run a 100 foot transit thru a summer plot and measure browse pressure. Then run a transit thru the highest quality managed timber and measure the browse pressure. Then consider how many acres of woodland it takes to equal modest acreage of productive crops. Walk out in a clover field first thing in the morning and observe deer beds. Deer frequently may loiter all night in these fields.

I am not diminishing the value of well managed timber. Absolutely it provides quality nutrition and cover. I am proposing that a well designed year round planting program greatly enhances the nutritional plane irrespective of the quality of local soils and provides a significant portion of a deers diet regardless of the surrounding habitat. What percentage of the diet I cant measure. But I do believe it is significant enough to materially improve the health of the herd.

Taking it a step farther. Summer plots can be designed such that deer will spend much of their time both daytime as well as night in the plots . We are now planting plots that include such cultivars as sunn hemp, sorghum sudan grass, milo etc. These plants in combination with cow peas, climbing soy beans, or other climbing peas create a literal jungle such that deer are comfortable hanging out in the fields unobserved even in the daytime. The same thing happens in large corn fields.

Many folks hunting territory is around commercial ag. Ask farmers if they get significant pressure on their beans or alfalfa or anything deer eat. I realize ag is different from our food plots but the results are the same. Deer are going to gravitate to the easy meal and I believe get much more of their dietary needs met there than elsewhere .

The significance of this to us as habitat and wildlife managers is to realize we can materially improve the deers diet thru our plantings. And as scale increases the benefits increase. And I do appreciate that in many cases the scale of property in the south is larger than that in the north. But the principles don't change.

I believe that comes from necropsy studies over years with lots of deer. I'm sure every deer is different, but by nature, they are browsers. They tend to weight security pretty high and placing food in cover will certainly keep them there more. I would guess some of it has to do with the wide variety of minerals and nutrients provided by native foods. There are certainly times when nature is stingy and that is summer in the south. During these periods, deer are using food plots in a much higher dietary percentage.

Plant for the gaps! Which is what you are doing.

 

[Baker]

I've spoken with biologist that have done numerous necropsy studies and what they find is deer eat the highest quality food available in the locale. For example where crimson clover is grown that is predominantly what the researchers found the deer were eating in the spring . Or they found soy beans to be by far the predominant forage around ag in the summer. I think we would all agree that the more variety the better for year round diet. I also think we all would agree that growing crops for the stress periods .....at least...is only smart. However that doesn't mean that deer minimize planted crops during the more lush times of year. The points I am driving at are 1) The belief that food plots and growing crops only provide a fraction of a deers diet is misleading and in many circumstances simply not true. 2) Growing crops can provide a substantial portion of a deers diet throughout most of the year if available 3) Recognizing this we as managers can enhance the nutritional plane year round with our plantings much to the benefit of the deer.

 

[yoderjac]

I've spoken with biologist that have done numerous necropsy studies and what they find is deer eat the highest quality food available in the locale. For example where crimson clover is grown that is predominantly what the researchers found the deer were eating in the spring . Or they found soy beans to be by far the predominant forage around ag in the summer. I think we would all agree that the more variety the better for year round diet. I also think we all would agree that growing crops for the stress periods .....at least...is only smart. However that doesn't mean that deer minimize planted crops during the more lush times of year. The points I am driving at are 1) The belief that food plots and growing crops only provide a fraction of a deers diet is misleading and in many circumstances simply not true. 2) Growing crops can provide a substantial portion of a deers diet throughout most of the year if available 3) Recognizing this we as managers can enhance the nutritional plane year round with our plantings much to the benefit of the deer.

I would still contend that food plots provide a small fraction of a deer's 24/7 365 diet. Food plots are not always the highest quality food available. During many times of the year, native foods far are higher quality. Plants peak at different times and food plots tend to have a small amount of diversity compared to quality habitat. Deer also value safety high. This means that during certain times, fawning, hunting season, etc deer will favor security.

The point that we generally make is that the underlying fertility of the soils are the limiting factor for herd health. Folks on marginal soils can improve herd health with QDM techniques but only to a point. They won't produce the same quality deer that we find on high fertility soils. Farmers can amend soils on a much larger scale because it is an input cost to a profitable operation. Wildlife managers planting food plots are limited by resources. I'd estimate an average home range to be 1,000 acres across a wide range of habitat. So, depending on how much acreage folks are managing, many deer will only spend a portion of their time on their property.

I sort of look at feeding deer this way. If deer are not under stress, the differential between my crops and the quality of natural food is minimal. When they are under stress quality food I plant is having a much larger impact. The way I measure short-term success is whether, when the stress period is over, is there quality food left in the field. If not, I may have not achieved my objective, but if I have quality food left in the field, it is excess in terms of feeding deer. Food that does not end up in the belly of a deer is not contributing to herd health.

Of course, the problem we all have is that we don't know what nature will provide from year to year. This year we had a mast crop failure and all my plots have been hammered by deer. We had a drought after fall planting, so they had a slower than usual start. In normal mast crop years, our plots are thick with food all winter.

I think many folks tend to look at deer in videos from high soil fertility areas and thing they, on marginal soils, will have the same deer if they implement a program. I try to keep expectations reasonable so folks don't get too discouraged.

That is my two cents for what it is worth.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Baker]

Fair enough to disagree. Not the first time I failed to sway. At the risk of being stubborn though I will challenge your fertile soil idea once more. The soils on my farm are lousy. Poorly drained ranging from red brick clay to slimy white stuff I am unsure what to call. Our side of the river has no ag, just pine timber production or cattle pasture. Yet through a food plot program designed to have high quality cultivars growing year round [ A beauty of the deep south ] abundant enough to provide availability for all the deer in the area we have as high a quality deer herd as anywhere in the country measured by any metric you care to choose.

Planted crops can and do provide a significant portion of a deers diet 24/7/365 in many places around the country.

 

[yoderjac]

Fair enough to disagree. Not the first time I failed to sway. At the risk of being stubborn though I will challenge your fertile soil idea once more. The soils on my farm are lousy. Poorly drained ranging from red brick clay to slimy white stuff I am unsure what to call. Our side of the river has no ag, just pine timber production or cattle pasture. Yet through a food plot program designed to have high quality cultivars growing year round [ A beauty of the deep south ] abundant enough to provide availability for all the deer in the area we have as high a quality deer herd as anywhere in the country measured by any metric you care to choose.

Planted crops can and do provide a significant portion of a deers diet 24/7/365 in many places around the country.

Keep working on me, perhaps you will change my mind. I'm sure there are regional differences as well. I'm not suggesting one can't grow high quality crops on poor soils, simply that unless one have very deep pockets, trying to make it a high percentage of a deer's diet is pushing a rock up a hill. In my area, deer's digestion changes as the seasons change. At some point browse becomes the lion's share of their diet here and their physiology changes to accommodate it. Even when their are higher quality foods available, I watch deer browse on tree branches.

I always enjoy your posts and arguments. They make me think!

Thanks,

Jack

 

[FarmerDan]

Gosh! Just try to sort this out! I think you both are correct and what each of you says is relevant depending on what implicit or explicit assumptions you make when arguing your point(s). I'm not going to have time to develop my discussion. Yes, there are places where domestic crops can and do provide an abundant portion of a deer's diet. There are other places (geographies) where it's nearly impossible without unlimited amounts of time and money. I'll side with Baker on the fertile soils discussion. Poor soils can be as supportive as good soils. It just takes a higher level of management and perhaps more acres to accomplish what might be achieved where there are higher quality soils. Having said that, there are hard, natural limitations to the idea of management and substitution.

 

[yoderjac]

Gosh! Just try to sort this out! I think you both are correct and what each of you says is relevant depending on what implicit or explicit assumptions you make when arguing your point(s). I'm not going to have time to develop my discussion. Yes, there are places where domestic crops can and do provide an abundant portion of a deer's diet. There are other places (geographies) where it's nearly impossible without unlimited amounts of time and money. I'll side with Baker on the fertile soils discussion. Poor soils can be as supportive as good soils. It just takes a higher level of management and perhaps more acres to accomplish what might be achieved where there are higher quality soils. Having said that, there are hard, natural limitations to the idea of management and substitution.

Dan,

I don't disagree with that when it comes to soil fertility. My point was that we can amend small areas of soils practically. Large areas (hundreds of acres) can only be amended practically if the amendment is serving some for-profit goal absent very deep pockets. We can amend where we plant, but since deer eat off that plate as well as the larger native foods plate, the underlying soils become the limiting factor. Well, at least that is my argument.

Short of a philanthropist providing large scale backing, I would contend that smart deer management minimizes substitution of quality planted foods for quality native foods and maximizes quality planted food availability during stress periods. I think part of this discussion might hinge on our different experiences with stress periods. Some places have heavy winter stress and no summer stress to speak, others may have the opposite, while others may have constant stress. In my area, summer is the major but not hugely greater than winter. We typically have an abundance of quality native foods in the spring and fall. Of course in years like this with a mast crop failure throw a monkey wrench into the norm.

Thank,

Jack

 

[FarmerDan]

Without thinking about it, I think we tend to think what we have in the way of habitat is what others have as well.

I'm going to try this. I might not work, but its worth a shot.

Much of what we do agriculturally, and I'm going to include deer habitat management in that because I'm lazy, is determined by the geology and other natural factors of the area.

All of it's captured in physiographic areas. The first map below is of the United States divisions. Divisions are broken into provinces and provinces into sections.

I would contend you can only have a relevant discussion about "practices" for unique sections. See the second map.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiographic_province

We often make reference to USDA zones, but this is another level of classification that really determines the type of natural enterprise that might be realistically be employed.
Bakers argument may be most relevant in sections of the coastal plain, but Yoder's correct in the Piedmont - for example. Other areas have different perspectives.

 

[Baker]

Lets explore the impact fertile soils have had on deer quality historically and currently. Using a conjured base line of 100 years ago you had areas of the country with terrific soils degenerating down to areas of lousy soil. Compare historic B&C records in the mid west with the Florida Keys. For most of that period of time deer management was non existent ; certainly not growing crops for deer. Fertile soils were more prolific both in forested areas as well as where there was ag. As a result of the epigenetic response to the environment deer in the fertile areas responded in kind and started growing bigger antlers among other things. Compare the deer Iowa, Illinois, Wi. , South Tx, etc to Florida, the coastal Carolinas , coastal Ms. and coastal La.and the pattern becomes clear. Some may argue different sub species. Why do we think we got those different sub species? Response to environment?

But now that historic trend has been challenged. Managers are growing giant bucks all over the country. What changed? An awareness of management and the explosion of food plots grown for deer that has happened largely since the (90's?) . Areas of marginal soils are growing top end bucks competitive with the best soils in the country. I'll be the first to agree that many factors are at play beyond just food plots but I will also be quick to argue that food plots and ag have played a profound role in the production of trophy bucks in areas where they didn't exist 30 years ago. And that is the power of epigenetics and enhancing the nutritional plane over time.

And thus I propose once again, that suggests that deer are getting a lot more of their diet from clovers, peas, beans, ...and the list goes on ....than just those same weeds. forbes, shrubs etc. that have been growing on those weak soils for 100's of years.

 

[Baker]

Without thinking about it, I think we tend to think what we have in the way of habitat is what others have as well.

I'm going to try this. I might not work, but its worth a shot.

Much of what we do agriculturally, and I'm going to include deer habitat management in that because I'm lazy, is determined by the geology and other natural factors of the area.

All of it's captured in physiographic areas. The first map below is of the United States divisions. Divisions are broken into provinces and provinces into sections.

I would contend you can only have a relevant discussion about "practices" for unique sections. See the second map.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiographic_province

We often make reference to USDA zones, but this is another level of classification that really determines the type of natural enterprise that might be realistically be employed.
Bakers argument may be most relevant in sections of the coastal plain, but Yoder's correct in the Piedmont - for example. Other areas have different perspectives.
View attachment 27090View attachment 27091

It will be helpful if you elaborate a bit more on this. I was educated in the La. public school system and we all know what that means. Gotta go slow with me. Help me understand how this pretty map impacts how much food a deer eats in cultivated crops vs. foraging about in the woods ?

 

[yoderjac]

Without thinking about it, I think we tend to think what we have in the way of habitat is what others have as well.

I'm going to try this. I might not work, but its worth a shot.

Much of what we do agriculturally, and I'm going to include deer habitat management in that because I'm lazy, is determined by the geology and other natural factors of the area.

All of it's captured in physiographic areas. The first map below is of the United States divisions. Divisions are broken into provinces and provinces into sections.

I would contend you can only have a relevant discussion about "practices" for unique sections. See the second map.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiographic_province

We often make reference to USDA zones, but this is another level of classification that really determines the type of natural enterprise that might be realistically be employed.
Bakers argument may be most relevant in sections of the coastal plain, but Yoder's correct in the Piedmont - for example. Other areas have different perspectives.
View attachment 27090View attachment 27091

Cogent points! We can only take so much away from the experience of others from other areas.

 

[yoderjac]

Lets explore the impact fertile soils have had on deer quality historically and currently. Using a conjured base line of 100 years ago you had areas of the country with terrific soils degenerating down to areas of lousy soil. Compare historic B&C records in the mid west with the Florida Keys. For most of that period of time deer management was non existent ; certainly not growing crops for deer. Fertile soils were more prolific both in forested areas as well as where there was ag. As a result of the epigenetic response to the environment deer in the fertile areas responded in kind and started growing bigger antlers among other things. Compare the deer Iowa, Illinois, Wi. , South Tx, etc to Florida, the coastal Carolinas , coastal Ms. and coastal La.and the pattern becomes clear. Some may argue different sub species. Why do we think we got those different sub species? Response to environment?

But now that historic trend has been challenged. Managers are growing giant bucks all over the country. What changed? An awareness of management and the explosion of food plots grown for deer that has happened largely since the (90's?) . Areas of marginal soils are growing top end bucks competitive with the best soils in the country. I'll be the first to agree that many factors are at play beyond just food plots but I will also be quick to argue that food plots and ag have played a profound role in the production of trophy bucks in areas where they didn't exist 30 years ago. And that is the power of epigenetics and enhancing the nutritional plane over time.

And thus I propose once again, that suggests that deer are getting a lot more of their diet from clovers, peas, beans, ...and the list goes on ....than just those same weeds. forbes, shrubs etc. that have been growing on those weak soils for 100's of years.

I think the problem with this argument is it doesn't consider changes in game regulations and cultural changes and management techniques outside soil limitations like supplemental feeding.

A good example of how deceiving records can be is the P&Y records in my state. The county in my state with the highest number of P&Y records in a metropolitan area where firearms use is extremely limited. It simply shows that the limiting factor for deer in our state over this period has been age. Bucks in this county live to maturity where over much of this time period, bucks elsewhere in the state had an average lifespan of 1 1/2 years. Regulations changed from very limited doe harvest to liberal doe harvest. When I was growing up it was almost embarrassing to say you only shot a doe. Today's ethic is different. I took a father and son out once for the kids first hunt on our farm. When they came back empty handed I said "No shot opportunity today?". The dad replied, we had a little 4-point at 20 yards but he didn't want to shoot it because it was too young. He was waiting for a doe or a big buck.

We can make some broad generalizations by overlaying B&C/P&Y with farming yields and see the general correlation between high end antler size and soil fertility, but with so many uncontrolled factors, it is hard to say much more than that with too much confidence.

I completely buy the epigenetics arguments but all those were done on captured deer. One would need to manage a vast area with a huge budget to see this work out in free ranging deer. Just like culling for antler size, free ranging deer with a free ranging diet, in practical terms, I don't see this working out.

Can we improve habitat with food plots as a component and increase deer weights antler size? On scale, sure! But I still believe there are limiting factors based on our underlying soils and climate.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Baker]

I think the problem with this argument is it doesn't consider changes in game regulations and cultural changes and management techniques outside soil limitations like supplemental feeding.

A good example of how deceiving records can be is the P&Y records in my state. The county in my state with the highest number of P&Y records in a metropolitan area where firearms use is extremely limited. It simply shows that the limiting factor for deer in our state over this period has been age. Bucks in this county live to maturity where over much of this time period, bucks elsewhere in the state had an average lifespan of 1 1/2 years. Regulations changed from very limited doe harvest to liberal doe harvest. When I was growing up it was almost embarrassing to say you only shot a doe. Today's ethic is different. I took a father and son out once for the kids first hunt on our farm. When they came back empty handed I said "No shot opportunity today?". The dad replied, we had a little 4-point at 20 yards but he didn't want to shoot it because it was too young. He was waiting for a doe or a big buck.

We can make some broad generalizations by overlaying B&C/P&Y with farming yields and see the general correlation between high end antler size and soil fertility, but with so many uncontrolled factors, it is hard to say much more than that with too much confidence.

I completely buy the epigenetics arguments but all those were done on captured deer. One would need to manage a vast area with a huge budget to see this work out in free ranging deer. Just like culling for antler size, free ranging deer with a free ranging diet, in practical terms, I don't see this working out.

Can we improve habitat with food plots as a component and increase deer weights antler size? On scale, sure! But I still believe there are limiting factors based on our underlying soils and climate.

Thanks,

Jack

I agree with some of your points but lets stay with the big picture. You will never have me arguing against age! Bucks in all age classes in most of the mid west and areas of superior soil have had bigger antlers than bucks in all age classes in areas of weaker soils...historically. Bucks in areas of superior soil have shown an ability to reach B&C status at younger ages than bucks in areas of weaker soils. Antlers are an accessory and improve or digress as an epigenetic response to the environment. Big picture big scale stuff. Can regulation, cultural changes and habitat use compromise full genetic expression? Of course. But that doesn't change the underlying potential. When looking at the big picture a pattern develops where you can see how historical fertility has impacted deer development across the country.

Studies at Ms. State have shown where what they call the " generational effect" can take deer from historically poor soil areas and when put on higher nutritional plane show some improvement. But more important their off spring show continued improvement over parents. And the children children continued better than their parents. Studies in Europe before WW2 followed this 'generational effect 'for decades showing continued improvement with an uncertainty they would ever cease. Unfortunately the war stopped the study. All this is epigenetic response. It can be seen as a mosaic across the country following soil fertility

My point: trophy quality deer are now consistently being grown in areas of lousy soil where there were rarely trophy deer before. Management focused on raising the nutritional plane especially thru food plots and ag along with allowing age have been chiefly responsible for this. Those deer are getting big in areas where they are eating peas, beans, clover and other legumes all summer and having small grains, brassicas and the like all winter. You simply don't find them in areas of weak soil without ag.

Can man screw this up with regulation, cultural changes, land fragmentation etc. Sure. Can man screw this up by pressuring deer so much they become schizophrenic psychotic vampires unable to follow their natural instincts? Sure. But does that change the reality that we can shift a deers diet significantly and reap the benefits of it? Does that change the reality that a deer will gravitate to the highest quality nutrition available if given the opportunity ? I think not.