Nutrition vs. Genetics

[wiscwhip]

None of the above info is really "new" news to guys who have lived in areas with GREAT dirt. They have always known why their deer are typically bigger and healthier than their peers with lesser soils. Same goes for the pastured livestock in those areas. To a great extent, the map that NoFo posted is quite accurate in that regard. Of course you have outliers, that is typical with anything, but the basis is right in front of you on that map. Those dark red areas will almost always have better overall dirt than the lighter shaded areas with less "trophy kills". Don't believe it, do some research on soil types in those black/dark red areas vs the lighter reds and tans, the truth is in the dirt.

 

[tynimiller]

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

Sounds like I'll love it! I've long said anywhere can grow large bucks, just two factors Nutrition (all encompassing) and Age. :D

 

[yoderjac]

None of the above info is really "new" news to guys who have lived in areas with GREAT dirt. They have always known why their deer are typically bigger and healthier than their peers with lesser soils. Same goes for the pastured livestock in those areas. To a great extent, the map that NoFo posted is quite accurate in that regard. Of course you have outliers, that is typical with anything, but the basis is right in front of you on that map. Those dark red areas will almost always have better overall dirt than the lighter shaded areas with less "trophy kills". Don't believe it, do some research on soil types in those black/dark red areas vs the lighter reds and tans, the truth is in the dirt.

Depends what you mean by "new". The study has been going on for a while. This article is not the first reference I've seen to the study in the popular hunting literature. The underlying study that the article describes is the first time I've seen nutrition demonstrated as a trigger for epigenetic change in deer. Most of what has been well known about nutrition (soils) in deer has been considered only in regards to how the deer consuming the nutrition responds. This study shows that the genetic expression of offspring for multiple generations change and can have significant impact in poor soil areas.

So, what does this mean to the average deer manager?

1) Don't expect fast measureable results from habitat management. Improvements in nutrition show the largest gain several generations down the road.

2) Because of this long-term effect, to have a significant impact improvements must be sustainable over the long haul. Magic beans are meaningless.

3) Folks on the best soils have the least room for improvement in regard to body weight and antler size with habitat improvement. These folks should focus on harvest goals (letting young bucks walk), and habitat improvements that help protect and retain deer and improve hunting.

4) Folks with the worst soils have the most room for improvement in regard to body weight and antler size. However, the soils will eventually be the limiting factor. While they have the most room for improvement, it comes at a cost. Sustaining high volume nutritional improvements over a long time period can be expensive in both time and money.

These are some of the factors that started me on the path toward a more long-haul approach improving soils (minimizing tillage and building OM in my case), and permaculture.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[shawnv]

I live right in and around the dark red of WI, come November I would rather be on ground that is less pressured over my area with the nutrition and genetics if I had to add a third option (assuming it has a reasonable deer population).

 

[yoderjac]

I live right in and around the dark red of WI, come November I would rather be on ground that is less pressured over my area with the nutrition and genetics if I had to add a third option (assuming it has a reasonable deer population).

That is a good point. One can be on great ground in a high pressured area where young bucks are shot and deer quickly go nocturnal and have a lower quality hunting experience than someone else on more marginal ground with less hunting pressure or different hunting ethic.

Dirt is certainly not the only consideration, but it is an important one.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Greta&Gus]

None of the above info is really "new" news to guys who have lived in areas with GREAT dirt. They have always known why their deer are typically bigger and healthier than their peers with lesser soils. Same goes for the pastured livestock in those areas. To a great extent, the map that NoFo posted is quite accurate in that regard. Of course you have outliers, that is typical with anything, but the basis is right in front of you on that map. Those dark red areas will almost always have better overall dirt than the lighter shaded areas with less "trophy kills". Don't believe it, do some research on soil types in those black/dark red areas vs the lighter reds and tans, the truth is in the dirt.

I would argue that there are plenty of guys out there, regardless of their soil type, that still think genetics plays a bigger role. It would be interesting to poll hunters from different areas and ask why they thought their area was good and/or bad. How many hunters in quality areas would cite genetics as a major factor? How many in poorer soils would cite genetics as a major factor? I have no idea but off hand I have heard a number of hunters use genetics as an 'excuse'.

 

[Greta&Gus]

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

No vintage photos that are in digital form. When I get a chance I will take a pick of the 1930s buck and post it here because the mount is very unique as it is a head mount not a shoulder mount.

 

[yoderjac]

I would argue that there are plenty of guys out there, regardless of their soil type, that still think genetics plays a bigger role. It would be interesting to poll hunters from different areas and ask why they thought their area was good and/or bad. How many hunters in quality areas would cite genetics as a major factor? How many in poorer soils would cite genetics as a major factor? I have no idea but off hand I have heard a number of hunters use genetics as an 'excuse'.

Most wildlife professionals now realize that managing people is much harder than managing wildlife. You are absolutely right that I've seen many hunters argue genetics are the issue. I think in many cases it is folks who have tried to do QDM, not see much in the way of results in a few years and are looking for an excuse to shoot a younger buck. They argue they are removing some less than desirable antler characteristic from the gene pool. It shows a complete lack of understand of genetics and free ranging deer.

Hopefully this kind of research takes the wind out of the sales of the "culling bucks crowd".

Thanks,

Jack

 

[tynimiller]

Most wildlife professionals now realize that managing people is much harder than managing wildlife. You are absolutely right that I've seen many hunters argue genetics are the issue. I think in many cases it is folks who have tried to do QDM, not see much in the way of results in a few years and are looking for an excuse to shoot a younger buck. They argue they are removing some less than desirable antler characteristic from the gene pool. It shows a complete lack of understand of genetics and free ranging deer.

Hopefully this kind of research takes the wind out of the sales of the "culling bucks crowd".

Thanks,

Jack

Amen Jack! The genetics discussion is always one I like to point out 1/2 the genetic make up of the buck comes from his mother....so....until someone designs the ability to show how the doe in your crosshairs could impact antler growth and to what style I'm gonna stick to ignoring genetics and focus on nutrition and age structure development.

 

[Bill]

You're never going change the mind of 3/4's of the culling crowd. They already know it doesn't work they just like the excuse. I've explained to a neighbor of my NJ land that any buck born on our properties will be run off by the doe group at a year old. So even if it did work, you're not changing anything on your land anyway.

In one ear and out the other.......o_O

 

[Mortenson]

Interesting topic. I know that you can't change the genetics of the herd, but when it comes to individual deer, I feel genetics and age play a bigger role than nutrition. Some bucks are growers and some just plain won't grow. The deer all have access to the same food. We still get a lot of mature bucks with racks that top out in the 120s despite the fact they're eating crops and weeds grown partially on muscatune soil, IL's number 1 ranked soil out of upwards of a thousand types for corn and bean production. Around here, I'll take the old buck with good genes that spends 99% of his time living in the quarry eating sticks. That's just my casual observation though. I'd like to read the article but I also don't get the magazine any longer. I was year one and done with them.

 

[yoderjac]

You're never going change the mind of 3/4's of the culling crowd. They already know it doesn't work they just like the excuse. I've explained to a neighbor of my NJ land that any buck born on our properties will be run off by the doe group at a year old. So even if it did work, you're not changing anything on your land anyway.

In one ear and out the other.......o_O

Bill,

I'm afraid you are right.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[gunther89]

Just to throw in a curveball, I hunt 2 different properties in Sauk county WI. 1 property has great soil and the other is basically sand. Both properties have produced 160+ type bucks. I will say the ground with sandy soil is irrigated but there is plenty of ground in that area that isn't irrigated. I would say the soil type in these areas has little affect on the size of the antlers, the areas are known for producing big deer.

 

[yoderjac]

Just to throw in a curveball, I hunt 2 different properties in Sauk county WI. 1 property has great soil and the other is basically sand. Both properties have produced 160+ type bucks. I will say the ground with sandy soil is irrigated but there is plenty of ground in that area that isn't irrigated. I would say the soil type in these areas has little affect on the size of the antlers, the areas are known for producing big deer.

The difference between anecdotal observations and a controlled study...

 

[sandbur]

Just to throw in a curveball, I hunt 2 different properties in Sauk county WI. 1 property has great soil and the other is basically sand. Both properties have produced 160+ type bucks. I will say the ground with sandy soil is irrigated but there is plenty of ground in that area that isn't irrigated. I would say the soil type in these areas has little affect on the size of the antlers, the areas are known for producing big deer.

I suspect that farmers with irrigated ground KNOW they have to maintain good pH and soil nutrients to get production to pay expenses. This attention to soil and irrigation might make the sandy soil perform much better than expected for whitetail nutrition.

 

[sandbur]

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.

The soil has not changed much since the 1930's. My line of thought was that we had a burst of new growth and browse at some time after the lumber Barons cut off our areas. Might match the 30's???
When was the Jordan buck killed and the Breen buck?

 

[Greta&Gus]

The soil has not changed much since the 1930's. My line of thought was that we had a burst of new growth and browse at some time after the lumber Barons cut off our areas. Might match the 30's???
When was the Jordan buck killed and the Breen buck?

The Jordan buck was shot in 1914. He was clearly older than my 92 year old grandfather but he did know him. Jordan owned a bar in Hinckley I believe.

 

[Greta&Gus]

Interesting topic. I know that you can't change the genetics of the herd, but when it comes to individual deer, I feel genetics and age play a bigger role than nutrition. Some bucks are growers and some just plain won't grow. The deer all have access to the same food. We still get a lot of mature bucks with racks that top out in the 120s despite the fact they're eating crops and weeds grown partially on muscatune soil, IL's number 1 ranked soil out of upwards of a thousand types for corn and bean production. Around here, I'll take the old buck with good genes that spends 99% of his time living in the quarry eating sticks. That's just my casual observation though. I'd like to read the article but I also don't get the magazine any longer. I was year one and done with them.

The individual deer can't be used as the base line. He will fall somewhere on the bell curve.

 

[yoderjac]

The individual deer can't be used as the base line. He will fall somewhere on the bell curve.

Yes, and that same bell shaped curve moves up and down in magnitude depending on the underlying habitat quality which generally equates to dirt quality.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[wiscwhip]

Does anyone honestly think you can even remotely affect the genetics of a wild herd given the fact that the bucks that frequent your land today could have come from miles and miles away when they dispersed from their mothers? The majority of the "genetics" you see on your land do not stay on your land and likely came from somewhere else anyway. Proven fact.