Nutrition vs. Genetics

[yoderjac]

Evidently my QDMA membership has not run out yet as I received the latest Quality Whitetail magazine today. It had a well done article explaining some of the latest research. The big take away list I got was:

1) When you buy, focus on dirt.
2) Forget about genetics. Other studies show you can't do anything about it in a free ranging herd. This article confirms that it is generally not a limiting factor.
3) Don't skimp on proper liming or P fertilization.


Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bill]

I think a guy could grow some big deer based on #1 and trigger control (in the neighborhood)

 

[Reagan]

I haven't paid for a membership for at least 2 years. I still received my copy today. They will continue to send them. I am guessing it allows them to inflate membership numbers while selling advertising.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[yoderjac]

I haven't paid for a membership for at least 2 years. I still received my copy today. They will continue to send them. I am guessing it allows them to inflate membership numbers while selling advertising.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You could be right. What did you think of the article? I've been pretty impressed by the MSU guys.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Reagan]

I didn't read it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yoderjac]

I think a guy could grow some big deer based on #1 and trigger control (in the neighborhood)

Good point. I think when we bought our place, we focused too much on the current habitat rather than the dirt. The better the dirt, the less you have to bend nature and the better the results with lower cost and effort.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Greta&Gus]

Genetics is the most overrated aspect of antler growth in my opinion. Every buck will fall on a bell shaped curve with as much as 50 or more inches per age class difference. Where the center line for that age class lands is based on the soil and available food sources. I have been working on scoring all of the bucks we have killed over 50 years at our place. There are 3 major clusters of antler scores that lead me to a hypothesis. They are at 85 inches, 115 inches, and 135 inches. I anticipate that the 'average' 2, 3, and 4 year old falls in line with those scores. Better soil might jump those numbers by 10 or 20 inches.

 

[Mainedrifter]

Genetics is the most overrated aspect of antler growth in my opinion. Every buck will fall on a bell shaped curve with as much as 50 or more inches per age class difference. Where the center line for that age class lands is based on the soil and available food sources. I have been working on scoring all of the bucks we have killed over 50 years at our place. There are 3 major clusters of antler scores that lead me to a hypothesis. They are at 85 inches, 115 inches, and 135 inches. I anticipate that the 'average' 2, 3, and 4 year old falls in line with those scores. Better soil might jump those numbers by 10 or 20 inches.

This is very interesting G&G . I would love to hear more about your findings and I wish I had 50 years of data for my place ! Thank you,

 

[Native Hunter]

Look at the link below. I wonder how much this varies at different locations in the country:

http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/287068/d8f908dabf/1246012115/3ededa88b5/

 

[jackpine]

What specifically do you look for in the dirt?

Sent from my Smartphone using Tapatalk

 

[chickenlittle]

The PA P&Y map says the big deer like cities and probably vote Democrat.

 

[sandbur]

Genetics is the most overrated aspect of antler growth in my opinion. Every buck will fall on a bell shaped curve with as much as 50 or more inches per age class difference. Where the center line for that age class lands is based on the soil and available food sources. I have been working on scoring all of the bucks we have killed over 50 years at our place. There are 3 major clusters of antler scores that lead me to a hypothesis. They are at 85 inches, 115 inches, and 135 inches. I anticipate that the 'average' 2, 3, and 4 year old falls in line with those scores. Better soil might jump those numbers by 10 or 20 inches.

Can you correlate any differences with recent timber harvests? With the movement of land out of crop farming?

 

[Greta&Gus]

This is very interesting G&G . I would love to hear more about your findings and I wish I had 50 years of data for my place ! Thank you,

I am still working on scoring all of the racks we have. I probably have 40 scored so far with another 10 to do. I also have a family friends racks who we hunt with who has probably 20 or so that I can get my hands on. In truth it will be a year or more before I am done. When finished I will post them here.

 

[yoderjac]

The PA P&Y map says the big deer like cities and probably vote Democrat.

Typically suburban areas have limited firearm hunting if any. Killing a mature buck is an order of magnitude harder with a bow than a firearm and killing any deer is harder. That means age is the key difference there. On the nutrition end, there is generally a lot of edge habitat and fertilization going on.

However, if you exclude the suburban counties from the P&Y map you basically have a soil map. The B&C map should remove some of this bias. Crop yields by county is another way to slice it to get you to the county level.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Greta&Gus]

Can you correlate any differences with recent timber harvests? With the movement of land out of crop farming?

That would be pretty hard to do. I really have them split in 2 categories, pre 1995 and post 1995 as that is when I started hunting. There really is no difference in my mind of the potential of a buck from the 70s to a buck now. The biggest buck we have is a 155 inch non typical that was killed in the 1930s by my great grandfather a mile north of our current property. I don't think the soil has changed much in 80 years.

 

[Greta&Gus]

Typically suburban areas have limited firearm hunting if any. Killing a mature buck is an order of magnitude harder with a bow than a firearm and killing any deer is harder. That means age is the key difference there. On the nutrition end, there is generally a lot of edge habitat and fertilization going on.

However, if you exclude the suburban counties from the P&Y map you basically have a soil map. The B&C map should remove some of this bias. Crop yields by county is another way to slice it to get you to the county level.

Thanks,

Jack

I agree with this. The biggest predator in suburban areas is a car, not a yote or wolf. They have advantages that rural deer don't have.

 

[Jordan Selsor]

That would be pretty hard to do. I really have them split in 2 categories, pre 1995 and post 1995 as that is when I started hunting. There really is no difference in my mind of the potential of a buck from the 70s to a buck now. The biggest buck we have is a 155 inch non typical that was killed in the 1930s by my great grandfather a mile north of our current property. I don't think the soil has changed much in 80 years.

That's awesome to have that kind of history with your place! Got any old vintage photos? Tell us more! lol

 

[Bowsnbucks]

I can shed some light on the Pa. map of counties. The suburban counties have very limited access to hunting - it's mainly private ground that doesn't get hunted, and if so, very lightly. I'm in S.E. Berks County, and good luck getting permission to hunt anywhere near here. I've seen really good bucks feeding at the edges of housing developments and along VERY busy highways here, but they are not huntable. So age happens by default. There is lots of ag around here too. The counties of Tioga, Bradford and Lycoming in northern Pa. have a mix of ag land and big woods. The biggest bucks come from the ag areas in those counties and woods/mountains that border the ag. I see bucks brought in to taxidermy shops in those 3 counties and when you look at the tags of where they were taken, it's the ag areas 95% of the time. Very few BIG bucks come from big woods blocks, which are largely public land - either state game lands or state forest land.

Here, the biggest deer bodies and racks come from the areas with the best food. A 4 year old buck living on twig browse, leaves, moss, etc. will not come close to a 4 year old living on corn, soybeans, alfalfa, clover, etc. Combine that with extremely limited hunting access and you get big bucks.

 

[tynimiller]

It is of little surprise to me as several other studies have shown how when analyzing big buck harvests stretched over time points towards a VERY strong correlation between the soils located in the areas harvested.

Have to check out this specific article though as I'm always interested in this. Antler development is not top of the list for me, as getting them to the age class to show their potential is the bigger aspect personally, however the better I can make the soils and deliver that to the deer the most potential they'll show.

 

[yoderjac]

It is of little surprise to me as several other studies have shown how when analyzing big buck harvests stretched over time points towards a VERY strong correlation between the soils located in the areas harvested.

Have to check out this specific article though as I'm always interested in this. Antler development is not top of the list for me, as getting them to the age class to show their potential is the bigger aspect personally, however the better I can make the soils and deliver that to the deer the most potential they'll show.

The article is a good read and the focus is epigenetics. It shows that it is not simply better nutrition. It is better nutrition over time. The science is that environmental cues switch on or off the expression of genetics that are present in the animal. Deer were captured randomly from 3 different zones each with different soil types and average body weights and antler size normalized by age. They were fed a controlled diet for several generations. Basically the group from the best soil and the largest body and antlers improved the least and the group from the worst soil and smallest body size and antlers improved the most. Some improvement was seen in the first generation, but significant improvement was seen by the second generation. By the second generation, differences between groups was very small. One would presume, although not yet shown, that by generation 3, it would be hard to tell the difference between deer from each group.

The point of the article is that even though in nature there were large differences between the deer from each area, none of this was due to differences in genetics from one area to another.

Thanks,

Jack